The fact that several clubs got into financial difficulty pre-cap is no reason to keep it
given it clearly does not prevent clubs getting into financial difficulty as we have seen with the Crusaders, London and now Bradford.

The cap has nothing to do with financial viability any more and has not ever since the 50% rule went out of the window.

The cap is all about trying to even out the competition and it doesn't even do that.

Bradford have hardly broken the bank on players recently anyway and things like the Harris settlement and God knows what else will have no doubt conspired against them but I'd guess over-paying players is not high on the list of reasons for their current problems.

So how do you explain the likes of Atkins and Ratchford at Warrington and McCarthy-Scarsbrook at Saints, despite their already being a hard cap in place?

At the end of the day the main reason for the longevity of the salary cap has been to increase competitive balance and that hasn't happened. 13 out of the 14 Grand Finals have been between, Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Bradford so exactly what has the salary cap achieved?

I think we need to forget about some of the smaller clubs for now and concentrate on having a league where we have 8 strong teams, which will see the standard of the competition increase. Having less financial constraints on clubs that can spend would see the quality increase too.

As it opposed to what it is now? Wigan, Warrington, Leeds and Saints competing for honours?

I agree. The RFL need to be encouraging Super League clubs to be actively seeking more sponsorship which in turn could allow clubs to spend more on salaries. I don't hold out much hope though when RFL do a deal with Stobart seeing no money exchanged, while Rugby Union sign a 5 year deal with Aviva worth £20m.

I've just finished my dissertation on this very subject focusing on issues with the Salary Cap so this news has been bang on for me and proved my point. The RFL have also made profit for the last 7 seasons, where has this money gone?

It's almost as if Rugby League in order to survive needs to become as commercialised as the North American sports. Whether fans like it or not, it could be a route which needs to be taken in order for a sport to survive.

I am not sure quite what you mean by "as commercialised as the North American sports" but as soon as the competition went full time across the board I was saying way back then that doing so implies a lot more money is required by the sport and also if you want players to be full time they will expect paying a lot of money because their career is short.

I think we want a pro sport on the cheap.

By that I mean that we need to be squeezing as much money as we can from all possible places. The adverts and sponsors for everything in the North American Sports maybe seen as a joke, but it makes a hell of a lot of money.

People continue to miss the point on the SC, I'm afraid.

Pointing to financial faliures in the pre-SC era is irrelevant to the question of whether the current system of financial controls on clubs (of which the SC is a major part) is working. It clearly isn't. The number of clubs that have got into serious financial difficulties in the SC era is astonishing - Bradford, Wakefield, Crusaders, London (several times), Widnes and the GatesHull and Shuddersfield fiascos spring to mind (there are probably others!).

Spending on players is only part of the problem, other expenditure needs to be controlled as well and we desperately need to get more revenue into the game.

Someone said that clubs can't afford players' wages. If that is true - bearing in mind the SC has not been raised in line with inflation and is therefore at least 30% lower in real terms than when it was brought in - RL is in a shocking state.

In a sense, yes, but the main reason RBS have acted now is because part of the loan was secured against Odsal, which is no longer a Bulls asset.

When I heard that news last night on Look North I couldn't believe it, what a monumental oversight by the Bulls. It's no wonder folk are reluctant to pledge.

Who has suggested that?

There are many I've heard suggesting, however, that RBS is not even a bank.

Whats that got to do with the price of cheese?

Something seriously does not add up here.



If the club is insolvent then the sale of the lease to the RFL may be challenged, unless it was at market value.

If the RFL paid market value (presumably a reasonably substantial amount given that RBS were apparently relying on it for security) then what happened to the cash?

If the proceeds went to pay down the overdraft RBS could hardly complain (if they did they'd be admitting they overvalued the lease for security purposes).

I suspect there is more going on here than we yet know about, further details may emerge of this latest bit of wheeling and dealing in the RL world.

Yet one of the press reports say that the long term liabilities of club are covered, also saying Peter Hood is throwing out mixed messages saying they are at deaths door or not

Still maintain the RBS are forcing them into admin by demanding there money back which in my own experience will be in an unreasnable time scale therefore looking more likely more tax payers money will be wrote off were as with a little bit of clver business thinking the could recoup there money long term

Surely if they were in so much financial trouble then the cheap season tickets over the past 2 years werent the best idea? They obviously wouldn't have shipped as many but less tickets at full price would likely result in more cash than lots of tickets at 60/80 quid?

Over on the other Yorkshire forums, there is little sympathy for Bradford's plight and a more narrow minded "serves them right" and "who can we get on the cheap from this" attitude. I find this almost more horrifying than the prospect of losing one of the best supported teams in a league where only 5 clubs out of 14 managed to average more than 10,000 per game.

The RFL need to be better informed and better prepared to deal with this type of situation as it devalues the game as a whole and puts a risk future sponsorship and investment. Whoever has been running Bradford has some questions to answer regarding how much of a surprise this is. Also, if the RFL took ownership of Odsal when it was considered by RBS as an asset, then it's not surprising the overdraft has been cut.

I just can't see how it has been allowed to happen with the franchising system etc. I get the feeling there was a monty pythonesque sketch when licences were applied for.

I do know that last season 90% of the salary cap's across Super League were used with the bottom 4 clubs spending up to 79% on average.

Since 2003 the top 4 clubs in Super League have been spending around 98% 99% and 100% of the cap each season.

If the ground was used as collateral, RBS would have had a lien on it. The money from any sale would have gone direct to them.

RBS, along with most of the other banks carried out a strategic review of their liabilities. Anyone, personal customers, businesses, governments, whatever, the risk of default was calculated and lending facilities adjusted accordingly. The bad thing about this was that companies, individuals didn't get any notice and real draconian rules were brought in. If sufficient guarantees weren't forthcoming then overdraft facility's were severely limited or withdrawn altogether. A shed load of businesses went bust with full order books, merely because their cash flow position went ar*e up. Not saying this is the whole case surrounding Bradford but things that look pretty bad at the moment can turn rosy in a few months time.

It's looking increasingly likely that an HMRC liability is about to hit the fan, hence the sudden urgency. If this is the case and the club is liquidated, no way should a New Co. be allowed to continue in Super League as this is tantamount to financial doping, with state aid to run a club. Any New Co. should be made to start in Championship 1.

103k raised so far apprently....

They've got a way to go, but they're doing pretty well.

Hope I'm wrong, but I can see it tailing off a bit after such an amazing start. It would have been nice to see the 'rugby league family' rally round Crusaders when their financial problems were made public.

or they want their money back first, the RFL loaned the dulls some money last year, bradford turned round and said they cant keep up with payments so the RLF took odsal clearing the loan but not giving enough money to sort problems.

and lets face odsal would of been the security on any business with RBS so as soon as bradford sold they have come in for their money

Interesting. If true then an administrator or liquidator might seek to challenge the sale of the lease as a preference. This could get quite messy for the RFL.

£103k so far is excellent but they still have to find a further £397 in the next 8 days. This also leaves them needing a further £897k by the end of April, quite a staggering sum really.
An HMRC bill gives the impression that they have been taking PAYE from their emplyees and not paying the Revenue but using it to run the club. If that's the case then the BOD don't deserve to stay in charge at the Bulls.
The RFL/SL need to put in place stringent financial controls to ensure clubs have to maintain a viable business. Whatever is in place now needs to be replaced by something that will stop this state of affairs happeneing again.
Wakey and Cru last year, Bradford now.
That's just not good enough!