Very true and for Bradford the only logical way to go. It's not very nice, especially if you're a tradesman owed money but administration is almost painless for the company. Quite impressed with the RL in covering their backsides by buying the ground.

They do have some good prospects, and personally I'd rather see them stay with a healthy Bradford. If they can't stay at Bradford, I suppose I'd rather have Bateman at my club than at someone else's.

But which way do you want it? In your last two posts you say either you're daft (if you don't try to sign them) or you're a vulture (if you do).

I'd rather see Bradford pull through without having to gid rid of star prospects. However, if they must sell players, I'd like us to go in for Bateman, maybe Whitehead (although, that'd be another second rower).

Bradford got any good, young centres?

Royal Bank for fecking Scotland.

Say no more. Idiots.

There are arguments for and against administration, I feel.

The cons are that creditors won't get back everything they are owed, and the owners take a financial hit.

The pros, however, are that it protects employment. protects customers and protects goodwill, which is precicely why it exists, is legal and is not (if used correctly of course) immoral.

What you have to weigh up is whether it's worth creditors getting an extra few quid at the expense of a load of jobs lost.

Would you invest your hard earned money in the current climate to the Bulls when the same people are going to be running the club? This should highlight what a god send IFL was when he bought us, a few years ago i was having a pint with McManus from Saints and he said nobody takes over a SL club to make money but it needs someone with money who loves the game to keep pumping money in, as it stands there only a few clubs who are profitable, long term its not good for the game.

It was the salary cap that was supposed to stop teams going bust not the franchise system!

However because everyone blew a gasket about Wigan breaking the cap they made it "live" which meant they had to scrap the 50% of income maximum bit. All teams can now spend to the level of the cap whether they can afford it or not.

You are also forgetting Bradford lost a court case to Leeds over signing Harris and had to pay compensation and have been fined for salary cap breaches themselves.

In other words there is probably a combination of factors (some of their own making) all conspiring against Bradford financially so to suggest they are in this state just because of the franchise system is a joke.

i thought the franchise was there so the weaker teams had a chance to build a decent team over the 3 years rather than coming close to the cap or putting themselves in financial difficulties trying to compete within the promotion relegation system, either way Bradfors are knackered at moment

From that point of view it was there to do away with the yo-yo of P&R which had its own seriously bad financial consequences. So instead of panic buying players at over the odds wages to avoid the drop clubs could put up with a season or two down the bottom without breaking the bank to avoid relegation. I don't see Bradford as having been big spenders anyway so I am not sure why the franchise system can be said to have failed in that respect for them.

A big selling point of the salary cap used to be the 50% rule which went out of the window not because the franchise system came in but just so the cap could go live.

It's pretty clear whatever auditing is supposed to go on within the franchise system to assess a clubs financial worthiness is pretty rubbish otherwise Bradford would surely not have been given a Grade B license. Then again if it is RBS who are calling in loans that were previously serviceable you have to ask has the rug been pulled from under the club? Either way that doesn't mean the idea of franchising is bad and doesn't mean of we didn't have it they would not be in the same boat anyway.

These are the objectives of the RFL set when bringing in the Salary Cap over 15 years ago...


[i- To protect the integrity of the Super League Competition by ensuring that the determinative factor in the sporting outcome is on-field sporting merit and not off-field financial considerations.

- To ensure that the Super League Competition remains competitive and therefore attractive to spectators and commercial partners by preventing clubs with greater financial resources dominating the competition and by ensuring a balanced spread of players among the participating clubs.

- To protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements, and;

- By means of foregoing, to protect the welfare and interests of players participating in the Super League competition and of all those aspiring to participate in the Super League Competition.[/i

Can somebody tell me please which of these objectives have been met?

Time to scrap the cap!

Have to say that it doesnt surprise me one little bit with RBS and / or any high street bank. Its now in black and white on sporting life that they have pulled the Bulls overdraft just before payments need making to HMRC.

Bankers, huh.

Lets hope they get some really bad nationwide publicity.

Well we own it now, and it would suggest that the facility it gave Bradford in the pastwas too generous, allowing them to get in the mess they are in now.

SL too big, get it down to 10 and make the matches "Events" worth watching. Sack this stupid 8 teams playoffs nonsense, reduce to 3 or 5 if you must, and bring back promotion and relegation. You will always have yoyo teams, thats the nature of things. But the bigger clubs need to be able to provide maximum entertainment, because thats what they, and we all as RL clubs sell. Loyalty will only go so far.

Anybody who thinks that a bank is, or ever was a charity needs thier bonce looking at.

Can't blame RBS, they've made a sensible business decision.

That is a statement i have heard so many times from people without real knoweldge of the chaos the RBS Are in and are causing, the RBS wouldnt know a business decision from there own

A simple question, If you had a chance as a lender to recoup all your money long term would you work with the client in order to recoup your investment or would you be prepared just to write off the whole lot ?

the RBS are writing off billions of pounds from [uthere[/u bad lending by simply pulling the rug from under companies and a big percentage of those businesses where asset rich.

As a state owned bank there policies are a disgrace to the banking fraternity, most of the big banks who were bailed out by public money have been ordered to work with there clients to stop the so called phoenix of business and simply dumping debt
yet we seem to have another example of the RBS ignoring that policy

Let me tell you i am seeing and hearing this on a daily basis and the decisions being taken by this bank alone beggars belief get your money out of there asap !

Good luck to the bulls they will need it dealing with the RBS

Trust me after being in business over 20 years I know they aint a charity.

I also know they are putting untold pressure on businesses the length and breadth of this country with their underhand tactics.

And I do not just mean RBS, its all of them.

Pulling overdrafts that small businesses use for working capital and that have been long established is common bank practice thesedays.

Despite their promises that they want to help business and they are backing business, its all Bull if you pardon the pun

Why would reducing the number of games in a season help? That would only reduce the money from Sky and gate receipts which wouldn't help.

All true. My original point was that RBS was not "For Scotland" as was suggested by Robinson. I feel really sorry for the fans, but can't believe that its all the banks fault. I'm not defending banks, but i'm fairly certain that Bulls have been badly managed, and have contributed in no small measure to this mess.

Widnes, Wigan, Bradford, Leeds. all 4 got into financial difficulty when there was no cap. The cap has to remain in some form.

I think the bank not being at least part of the problem is one of the least likely scenarios these days.

We could have a sort of break even format, whereby clubs have to bring in the money to be able to spend it.

Or we could change the hard cap, to a soft cap with a number of exceptions that allow the big clubs to spend over.

One thing I would scrap is the rule, where players cannot gain sponsorship without it counting as his "Salary Cap Value". Having players such as Sam Tomkins being able to earn more money from sponsorship, can only be a good thing and gain more recognition for the sport.

Classic case of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Bringing that in would see the top sides take all the best talent from the poorer sides, and the poorer sides would suffer as no-one of any quality would like to go there. Stupid idea.

cap definitely needs to reward home grown talent - a club like bradford would benefit from that too, not just wigan.

How would only a % of a homegrown players wage counting on the cap help Bradford in this situation? Its ideas to raise clubs income that needs looking at ASAP, not enough clubs are profitable. If anything clubs need to be spending less on wages than finding ways to enable them to spend more. The sponsor deal with Stobart is a flop, its brought nothing to the clubs but gets Stobart all over sky tv for next to nothing.

Here's me buying a lottery ticket tomorrow.

What a quality opportunity for someone with deep pockets and a love for RL.

With a some cash, new ideas, patience and a long term goal you could awaken a sleeping giant and write your name in the history books of our great sport.