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.

Lets be honest, if we removed the Salary cap it would basically be a 3 team competition between Wigan, Warrington and leeds.

Feel pretty sorry for the Bulls fans who have been put into this predicament. And as much as we all know the Rugby League community sticks together with these sort of things I'm not so sure they are gonna get the fund's they need. It's rather sad that the club and it's directors that have gotten them into this mess are now asking fans to bail them out financially or the "game against Leeds at odsal could be their last"

It seems a bit too much like emotional blackmail and desperation to me, and if maybe the club had been more honest in public about the situation then maybe things could have been done differently.

I dont think we should scrap the cap but make it so it encourages clubs to bring in asmuch cash as possible. Make the cap so you can only spend 50% of your income on the top 25 earners in your squad. More income more to spend on players and more to develop all the other areas in your club.

The RFL need to come up more money for clubs aswell, Al Jazeera are being touted by the premier league as potential rivals to sky for the next tv deal, the RFL need to come up with a rival to sky, each club gets £1m a year from sky we need it to be more. I dont think we get anything for bbcs coverage of the CC, lets get channel 5 interested. The steady income of each club needs to be raised.

So hold back the clubs who work hard to generate business....!!!!! Its time some clubs started to realise we are living in the here and now, and not in some glorious past...!!!! For all our history, we have a vibrant marketing dept which is working hard on our behalf.

Bradford Northern went out of business in 1963 and then reformed to later become World Champions 3 times!

I can understand the passion and raw emotion causing Bradford fans to give and plead for donations, but what exactly will they be getting for their money? With the same people in charge, what's to say this won't happen again? Serious questions need to be asked about the club's long-term viability under the present stewardship. Giving money to the people who got the club in this situation doesn't sit right with me. If the RFL and the game as a whole uses this debacle as a reality check then maybe we as a sport will be able to learn valuable lessons and grow stronger. However I fear it will be papered over only to come back to haunt is in the not too distant future.

How have things( finances ) at Bradford changed so quickly after being awarded a 3yr franchise Mr RFL, answers please.