Not necessarily. That money might cover the whole of last month, and they may only pay the players during the season (8 months), which brings us to £1.6 million which is still the cap limit (isn't it?).

The RFL stepping in was, I think, the only option. Expunging Bradford's matches would have left Leeds one game short of everyone else, and could well leave them outside the top 8, prompting a 'certain type of Salford fan' style hissy fit. The payment should only get them through to the end of the season, though. After that, I think they should spend a bit of time outside of Super League.

Do you interpret the 200K from the RFL as a financial gift or monies owed to the Bulls in the future brought forward?

The article doesn't really say, but I suspect it'll be financial help. Bradford backed the RFL into a corner with this, and helping them limp through to the end of the season seems the least worse option.

Yet this appears to be throwing good money after bad and sets a dangerous precedent when it appears that a number of clubs are in financial strife. What happens the next time, and the time after that? Moreover, the RFL appear to be propping up something that hasn't got a long term future just for the sake of not upsetting Leeds? Why didn't they do this for Crusaders or Wakey?

I think there were other options one of which was/is to let the current Bradford club die to serve as a very significant reminder that no-one should be immune to financial failure. Bradford are just one in a long line of clubs to go bust by spending more than they can afford over a sustained period in the hope of glory on the field. These clubs have regularly taken points off other teams around them (in our case twice making the difference between staying in SL and being relegated to the Championship, throwing our limited finances into chaos to boot) and their boards have just carried on not giving a s**t about the immediate and eventual consequences of their actions that have eventually affected their fans, including dipping into their pockets to the tune of £500k with no plan to reduce their expenditure to a realistic level.

I feel desperately sorry for the Bulls fans, it's not their fault that the people who ran their club were profoundly incompetent, but I think the last thing they need now is for the RFL to make this situation limp along any further. Perhaps now some of our more vitriolic posters on here will recognise the value of the approach that JW has taken over the years to not spend what we don't have (by the way that's not a cue for a debate on WHAT we spent it on btw) because God knows, the RFL don't give off any signs that keeping your financial house in order will ever be rewarded.

When you put it like that, its hard to have any sympathy with Bradford.

There are more clubs than just Leeds affected by this. There are what? 8 games left in the ordinary season. That means there are probably 4 clubs, maybe 5, still awaiting a visit from Bradford. Those clubs will have sold season tickets and sponsorship on the basis of 13 home games, but will be shortchanging those season ticket holders and sponsors if they only deliver 12, leading to potential losses when they all start asking for money back. They'll also miss out on the gate receipts, bar receipts, etc, while at the same time still incurring costs related to the missing fixture if, for example, they rent their stadium.

The RFL needs to limit the fallout from this, so I don't think they have much choice other than to help Bradford reach the end of the season. Then they should let the current club die and start again in the Championship (if they'll let them in). Longer term, the RFL need a cunning plan to help prevent this happening again, or at least a plan on how to deal with it should it happen again.

Exactly that was my point.

If the cap is 1.65 million and you divide that by 12 it's £137,500. If the National Insurance is 13.8% that adds another £18,975, totalling £156,475. I just can't see the Bulls paying their academy players a cumulative figure of forty odd grand a month. Even with two teams the under 18's and U20's that would mean each player (40 players) was paid an average of a grand a month for being a part-time prospect. There is no way it's costing clubs near 500K a season to just pay academy players. I'd imagine that a lot of these boys are just getting reimbursed for travel expenses etc.

I would have thought that the 1.65 million included tax and NI, which makes the academy figures slightly bigger.

Someone must have an idea on how much our academy get paid, even if it's a rough guess through the Forever Reds work?

To my knowledge the employer doesn't pay tax on the employees salary only the NI.

Red John. Having analysed the tables and the 2 scenarios that have been rumoured (ie expunging all of bradford's games or adding the points on to those teams that have lost or are yet to play them). There is only one team in the entire league that loses out both ways.... Salford!!!!
If they expunge them we lose 3 points and if they add them then Wakefield gain 4 as opposed to our 1. This adversely affects our league position. Also if they add the points Leeds would in fact gain 4 points also having lost to the Bulls earlier on in the year with the added bonus of 2 points from their Magic weekend win. This is hardly a hissy fit but cold hard facts!

Employers deduct tax at source if you are PAYE and should then pay this to HMRC. Many failing companies will make the deductions then not pay this over.

I believe the payments made to players represents an advance of monies due to Bradford for SKY or Stobbart money.

As Red Willow points out, they do. I think it gets paid to HMRC monthly, but I'm not 100% certain on that (I know self-employment tax is annual from previous experience).

What I mean is the players contracts won't cost a club anything in (income) tax and it isn't an added expense like NI. For instance if you take this 200K the income tax will be deducted from the employees salaries. NI is different and paid by both the employee and the employer.

what Stobbart money? The only thing they could get is a trailer with the Bradford captain on, which I suppose they could sell for about £20,000.

Well, like I said, I think propping Bradford up until the end of the season is the least worse option.

Not for the Rugby league, so far this year Bradford have had £1.5m off the RFL, plus some other sweetners amounting to £300k mentioned on another post, if the RFL are to pay £200k a month for the next 3 months that would be nearly £2.4m from the RFL altogether this year. Can the game afford this, and why don't the RFL reward clubs that actually pay within their means not totally beyond them in the pursuit of trophies which they can't afford.
Bradford fans have to be realistic and realise that for Bradford and other clubs to kick on they have to charge a price that affords the team they want, ie £220 for a season ticket not £84. I would let them go bust and award any games to come to the opposition, plus pay the clubs who miss out on the home game £25,000 to make up for the lost gate money, this plan would only cost the RFL £100k, see I have saved the RFL £500k in a matter of seconds. Next season Bradford could start again in the Championship and build a team they can afford and reapply for a license again in 2014, meanwhile a team from the championship can apply for next year for a two year license and be told at end of this month if they are succesful giving them time to build, they may even pick up some Bradford players along the way.

I agree completely.

We are a club that does not risk its future by spending beyond its means and we rarely get any credit for that. Both Brian Snape and John Wilkinson have invested heavily in the club and have run it sensibly given the many financial restraints we have had to face without any support from the RFL as far as I am aware. I do not wish to see Bradford fail but do wonder what would be happening if it were Salford in this financial mess.

Without Messrs. Snape and Wilkinson I do wonder where we'd be. We have them to thank for the fact we have a club still, yet some posters seem to find fault with everything they do. Nobody is claiming they were perfect but we were only able to enjoy a night like last Friday because of their financial support.

Whilst i applaud your loyalty, It's a bit rich when only this season Salford have fallen in arrears with HMRC and in previous seasons had money given to them by the council to "assist with day to day running costs". As far as Bradfords cost for employing staff go they will be liable to pay around 12% extra on top of the individuals agreed salary representing the Employers Ni contribution.Any other deduction is from the employes salary but as rightly stated needs to be paid to HMRC by the 19th of each month following the 5th of that month, failure to do so now renders the employer with a penalty, allowing for one missed payment. Taking that into account Bradford would have known exactly how much the cost of their wage bill was and therefore able to budget for it, the fact they didn't is their problem and subsequently will compound into the problem they are in. Should the Rugby league help them out....absolutely not. It didn't happen when my own team Swinton went bump and it wouldn't happen to Salford either the RFL are only interested in the Wigan, Leeds and St Helens of this world. As for letting them start in the Championship well yes but in Championship one starting off from scratch with promotion following for clubs from Championship 1 and the Championship. It is still a disgrace that a founder member club Bramley have nevr received help nor been allowed into any tier of the "professional" divisions.
The sooner the farce of frabnchise is removed the better as clearly franchises are manipulated to get clubs what they want without clear scrutiny of the real figures or else the Bradford problem would have been clear in their business plan.

You're confusing me here. Yes, the tax is deducted from the employees salary, but where does the money come from to pay said tax? From the club/company. If you're paid £18k a year, then it costs the company £18k a year, it's just that the tax and NI then goes over to HMRC. So it still costs the club/company £18k, the £2k or so tax just gets passed to HMRC rather than into your back pocket.

So a wage of £18k costs the club/company £18k plus the extra NI contributions, not £15,895 plus their own NI contributions. Otherwise, where else does the extra £2k and a bit come from?

Unless, of course, that's what you mean and I'm just misunderstanding you?

In a nut shell, if you agree to pay someone 20k a year salary it would cost that company an extra 2400 quid so the real cost is 22400k the deductions made from the employees wage plus the additional NIC is paid to HMRC. Hope this clarifies it.

Thats exactly what I meant. If a club/company employ somebody its not just the agreed wage they pay. The company pays the employee's wage and the employers NI contribution on top. (A Percentage of what they are paying the employee)

Therefore if maximum cap is £137,500 a month, a club will pay this amount and also £18,975 in NI based on 13.8% national insurance.

Don't want to get too techy here, just curious, but presumably there may be Employer pension contributions to add on as well? If there is would these and employers NI cont not be covered within the salary cap?

There is a document on the RFL's website that details which monies contribute towards the salary cap, and those that are exempt. Someone else can decipher it.

The payments may be exempt from the cap but in this context they are a liability that the current Bulls Company should be meeting, along with medical/accident insurance etc