I don't think we should stifle the better run clubs with a lower salary cap just because Bradford choose to pay Jamie Langley over £100k a year*. If a club chooses to live above it's means then this kind of thing will happen. Look at London - utilizing the full cap doesn't guarantee success either.

[size=50*Probably[/size

How long until the players are reduced to washing cars etc to raise funds again ?

They can't complain, if they'd have bothered to make the CC final they would have secured lots of revenue for the club.

Sad times on the back of sad times for the fans.

Good luck Bradford.

Couldn't they get a loan off their sponsors ??

maybe there's no money as its all gone on Robbie's supply of fake tan since he's gone back to Odsal






that was a joke btw .....

Yeah absolutely...why should leeds for eg. be dragged down to bradford's level because of the latter's own failings? But something has to be done because a number of club owners clearly can't be trusted with a cheque book.

Perhaps the cap should be fitted (see what I did there

) to each club based on their overall income/turnover etc like the new FFP rules coming into football. Yes it might make SL too one-sided but I'd hardly say the salary cap as it stands is providing a thoroughly competitive SL anyway.

Is this one of the reasons why elliot whitehead was sold?

Circular though, isn't it? There's a few clubs, maybe as many as 8 or 9, who if they decided [uunilaterally[/u to start living within their means, would see those means decrease in a downward spiral.

Spending the full cap might not guarantee success, but spending significantly under it, pretty much ensures failure.

If it was 3 or 4 clubs struggling financially and the rest thriving, they could be cut adrift and the rest could happily sail away. Unfortunately, it is the other way around - 3 or 4 doing well, the rest struggling. And 3 or 4 isn't enough to run a league. The top clubs need to be 'stifled' because there are so few of them and they need somebody to play, who can 'challenge' them. They'll carry on winning every year, but once they start winning every week interest will wane quickly.

The weakness of other clubs holding Leeds or Wigan back might well frustrate, but to a large extent it (the other's weakness) is what their success is built on. If by some miracle there were suddenly a dozen other big clubs competing with you with similar resource, you'd need a good deal less brasso. If the weak got even weaker, then where's the challenge? The big clubs have got the rest exactly where they'd want them, I imagine.

tbf, at this stage it seems to be 'only' a cashflow issue - no need for the last rites yet!

There must be a couple more Burgesses in a cupboard somewhere they can flog to Uncle Russ.

I hope you are right

Well having spoken by email to the Bulls general manager about it, it is just a cash flow issue with Mr Khan already putting in 800k this year to help cover short falls in income. It's just some people hear one thing and assume the worst without getting an understanding of the situation.

Breeding season was only last month. They've got some but they need fleaing and neutering before they can be sold.

So Bradford gone, Wakey just behind

Maybe the Broncos will survive the cull next year!

yeh thats what they will tell you.... being the truth is another matter... you should know that more than most fans at bradford..we have found out the hard way too at hudds recently.

no wonder your wanting more money for kopzchak from us!

Funny, it wasn't a "cash flow issue" when Robbie Hunter-Paul was all over social media last week telling us all that the money was in the bank and that the players would be paid on the 31st as usual.

So either RHP lied, or he was lied to and then repeated it to a wider audience.

That the chairman then decides to come out "in the interests of openness" and fess up to not having the cash to pay the wages on time is hardly reflective of a professionally run organisation.

They are on half sky money as a penalty for getting into financial strife. I don't have a problem with this as long as future penalties to clubs are consistent. Another factor in the late wages is they have had few home games recently.however things don't look good when you don't pay wages on time however you dress it up and whatever line of business you are in

Based on what evidence are Wakey just behind?

And this is the new, sustainable Bulls??

Just sounds like they are spending more money than they have coming in. Again.

Live cap will stop that happening... oh, wait...

Is that true? You penalise a team struggling with money by giving them less money? Sounds daft if you ask me.

Strange

There were no rules in place to deal with what happened at Bradford. Ultimately their fate was decided by a committee of the other SL chairmen, who at the time were also propping them up financially (I'm not clear on whether they got that money back).
Opinion was divided, it seems fair to say. Omar Khan wanted assurances that the licence would be transferred to the newco and this was the compromise that was reached.

So they're in SL (to the annoyance of many fans of the bigger Championship clubs, I imagine) fighting with one hand behind their backs (to the annoyance of Bulls fans).

Wakefield got less support and fewer assurances, but Crusaders collapsed to their rescue, so in the end they probably benefitted from the relative lack of help they got.

Having more CCJs than points ???

Actually Wakefield got no support & no assurances, but at least certain vulture clubs took some of their better players for paltry amounts.

After reading the Rimmer stuff it may be better for a SL club to go into administration this season rather than next.