So as it stands, we are not paying Pryce? Seems unlikely to me.

Salary Cap.............. Please stop speaking in riddles I don't understand

What you have to remember is that players play for teams like Leeds and Warrington "just because they want to" and don't mind being paid well below their worth.

And you have to remember that neither Leeds not Warrington, unlike some other teams, have ever breached the salary cap. The 'live cap' rules means that Pryce could only be signed by the Bulls is his pay is within the cap, so you have nothing to worry about.

Perhaps our salary cap would be better spent on a 'good' accountant.

Salary cap..... never heard of it. Bradford should just employ the same policy as Warrington and pay the players whatever they want. That way you'd be better at rugby. And then maybe we could all be treated to 'BULLMANIA' once more.

Grow up.

As has been pointed out, each player is assigned a.Salary Cap Value. You cannot register a player unless the RFL has confirmed that value falls within the cap. Go read the Operational Rules instead of listening to Ill-informed gossip.

As for the salary cap, I have explained on here any number of times how a club with wealthy ownership could drive a coach and horses through it.

Well said that man

I know you've explained before but it's always good to go over old ground.
Now, I remember watching Bulls play Saints and Chris Joynt threw himself on the ground without being tackled and......................................

Paul Daniels works wonders here at warrington "now thats magic"

I presume he must be on a retainer with one of Moran's music interests?

how many times have the bulls gone over the salary cap???

And thats exactly how it should be, the salary cap was brought in to stop teams like the Bulls hoarding all the talent, if you want to bring in one top player you might have to offload another.

Once.

Because someone at the RFL decided that image rights paid to an unconnected third party should be treated as having come from a connected party. It affected two years because of the very long delay in the RFL ruling.

Funnily enough, a similar arrangement with Saints and Scully and Gillette was ruled OK.

And I wonder how many similar arrangements are currently in place for certain clubs?

You believe the salary cap works if you want to.

If I was a wealthy club owner I could drive a coach and horses through it, even legally.

Kind of on topic but...

How has the rule changed on voluntary tackles? Riley (I think) yesterday threw himself to the floor and laid there for an age without a hand on him.The ref seemed to be urging the Bulls players to tackle him. What is the rulng these days? It's no longer a penalty but what is it?

Its a tricky one, a voluntary tackle is really only penalised if player stands up and plays the ball without a player form oppo side touching him..but if bulls hadnt of tackled him i would give hi a few seconds to do summat othersie i would penalise him..not for voluntary tackle as you cant..but for against spirit of the game.

Chris Joynts wasn't a voluntary tackle because he didn't play the ball. Some Bulls fans really need to get over it. Plus if Chris Riley throws himself to the floor is not an illegal offence, Jefferies did it as well so he didn't get pushed in goal. Its their own fault if they get someone jumping on them. Spirit of the game is not a punishable offence either. Just saying...

It would help if you learned at least the first clue what you're talking about before posting. That way there'd be less drivel. Just saying.

The one involving BJ was laughable, Alibert stood beside BJ urging him to get up and run with it. I assume the officials have been instructed to not penalise this anymore, I probably missed it in one of the 100 or so rule changes we've had in the last 5 years.

Are you deluded? Seeing some of the crap you post, I think you should have a sit down and have a word with yourself. I'm a bulls fan its not like i'm attacking Bradford so no need to get your girly parts all flustered

Calm down, son. Just because someone pulls up you up on talking crap doesn't mean they are in a tizzy. OK, I gave you the chance to check it for yourself, but as you can't be arrsed and would rather be shown up:

[code[b]Section 11 - "voluntary tackle":-[/b]
A player in possession shall not deliberately and
unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by
voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an
opponent. If a player drops on a loose ball he shall
not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled[/code
So:
1. Was he in possession? - Answer YES
2. Did he deliberately allow himself to be tackled? YES
3. Was it necessary? - No*.
4. Did he voluntarily fall to the ground? - YES
5. Was it when not held by an opponent? - YES
Therefore, emphatically a voluntary tackle as soon as an opponent lays a hand on him completing a tackle.

*=#8080FFIt is difficult to see how it could ever be "necessary". Suffice to say on this occasion, there was no question at all of any "necessity" that I can imagine, even if I try hard.


OK> Oh, er -except, it is:



Now, if you haven't the balls to apologise, I suggest you shut the feck up and get back in your pram.

You tell him, sista

You think? I worry I might have used too many big sentences for him.

Adeybull, you sound like quite a whizz with figures....Why don't you offer your services to the Bulls board, if its really that easy??