How about "OdSlum Dog Millionaire Tandoori"

I made myself laugh then, sorry.

There are a lot of people quoting lot's of financial figures. Could someone tell me where they are getting their info from please? Wouldn't mind a look to satisfy myself.

I think everyone agrees that the CC does not prevent a club from overspending. That much is pretty obvious- you could pay the cleaner £10m a year and your players £0.5m.

However, and this is the key point, it DOES put an "extra" safeguard into the system (or at least did under the old 50% non live cap system).

Well, Bradford's monthly outgoings have been stated as £300k by Guilfoyle, which equates to £3.6 million pa, which is more than double the cap limit.

Surely the outgoings arent just the players wages? Im sure there will be rent and other things eg the Coaching staff's wages and travel to away fixtures and training facility rental/upkeep (assuming they dont just use Odsal).

Even so the outgoings do seem quite substantial for a RL club.

That's the point, players wages can only be £1.65 million, so even if the 50% rule was in place they'd still be under 50%.

The current situation at Bradford Bulls is sad for all concerned. Players, staff, fans and the whole sport of Rugby League will feel the ramifications for years to come. I really do hope Bradford turn it around but the current administrator, Brendan Guilfoyle, has said he is open to offers for players but has yet to receive any offers.

I was wondering, given our current situation with half backs, whether Jarrod Sammut is worth a bid. Comparisons with Chase and Moran about his individual flair and play style will, of course, be keenly debated. Could Sammut do a job for us in the short term, while Tommy is out, and in the longer term next year in a partnership with Matty Smith? (if it ever gets finalised and announced).

I am in two minds myself; he can be devastating at times but has vulnerabilities that need to be worked on. On top of that he has had more than his fair share of injuries and might be seen as some sort of Jonah, considering he has now been at two clubs which have gone into administration in the last year.

So, what do you think? Worth a punt or don't touch with a barge pole?

kinky sod!

Falls into the silly hair category and simply not good enough for Wigan

have you been on the pop

Another problem Bradford have is that I don't think the sale of their best players will bring in as much cash as they may hope.

Bateman is the one who seems to be attracting all the attention, but he's only 18 and some of the figures being mentioned in his case are frankly ridiculous.

Two that I would be interested in are the centre, Lulia - because he's a big unit (but of course he's an overseas player, and that seems to be against our policy at present) and Kopczak (but we've already got lots of big forwards - so the same reservation must apply to Scruton and Langley).

We also have to be wary of 'star players' in teams who aren't even in the top eight. Usually it's a sign that they're not really star players.

I would look more at Jefferies more than Sammut. And even then I don't think he is that good either.

I'd have Ainscough back

I think DaveO has hacked into nikos' account.

I want Karl Pryce back, he was a big loss for Wigan !

Sammut is a poor man's Dennis Moran.

We could have Sammut at 7 creating chances for a Karl Pryce/Patrick Ah Van wing/centre partnership - mouth watering prospect. Get rid of Goulding and Charnley, they're rubbish!

Why put a bid in for a player when he may well be available and OOC by July 11th. That's probably why no bids for players have been received.

I wouldnt say hes THAT bad

The fact something designed to prevent something occurring failed to do so doesn't mean it has nothing to do with the situation. The fact the FSA failed regulate the banks prior to 2008 doesn't stop people blaming the lack of regulation [ias well as[/i the banks themseleves for the situation. In fact the failure of regulation is seen as one of the major causes of the problem. It is the same here and the situation Bradford find themselves in is a result of board decisions [uand[/u a failure of the cap to live up to its stated purpose as outlined in section 1.1.3 of the operational rules. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

The only thing absurd is your continued belief that the aims an objectives of a particular policy can be seen in anyway contributing to the current situation at Bradford, especially so given the Bulls were spending below the previous 50% threshold on the cap. Just to put this particular absurd thinking to bed, seeing as Bradford are losing about £200k a month according to reports, the players would need to pay the club in order for the cap to meet to its objectives. Bilko's excellent match preview for the Bradford game shows just how the Bulls have got into the mess they have, not surprisingly it's about income generation not matching expenditure, not what some aims and objective say on a piece of paper.

As for the FSA analogy, the how you can even try to make some connection between how the money markets need to manage risk, with the knock-on effects to the rest of the economy and the RFL having a salary cap only you know.

As you obviously are desperate to blame the RFL as part of the problem, look at why the Bulls were given a license.

You are desperately to try and dig yourself out a hole but you keep digging. I picked the right word for your position in absurd. Your position that the salary cap has never had and does not have anything to do with clubs going bust is nonsense. Failure of regulations to designed to prevent such things occurring are complicit in the problem.

Your suggestion I am trying to "try to make some connection between how the money markets need to manage risk, with the knock-on effects to the rest of the economy and the RFL having a salary cap only you know" it a blatant misrepresentation of my point but then you would have to do that because you can't argue against the actual point I made. It is a fact that people blame the failure of regulation as a factor in the banking crisis and not just those running the banks. It is the same here. Failure of regulation is clearly a factor in RL clubs going bust [ias well as[/i the decisions of those running the clubs. The analogy is simple and sound. I am sure everyone can see this.

Correct !

I certainly find it absurd that anyone other than the board at the Bulls would try to blame anything other than their own mismanagement for the mess they're in.

One of the aims of the cap is to restrict spending on a particular areas of expenditure, that's all is it. Just because the Bulls management then went and made a load of awful decisions on other areas of financial management is not something that can be blamed on the cap, unless of course you have a particular agenda or hobbyhorse that defies logic and reason.

As I said in my previous post, the Bulls players would have to pay to play in order to break even, which shows the problems are elsewhere. Just because you choose to ignore them and desperately try to make out its the cap as well is what's really absurd.

No.

As has been demonstrated a 50% cap, properly managed, would, in all likelihood, have reduced the scope to overspend. It wouldn't have prevented it necessarily, but it would have likely reduced it. We can't say for certain until we have seen the financials of the club.

The Bulls were spending less than 50% of their turnover on the cap. I've obviously woken up in some parallel world were if people spend what they don't have then it can be blamed on something that says "you are allowed to spend up to £X on a particular thing". Just because you can spend up to a limit doesn't mean you have to if you can't afford it, nor is it in anyway responsible if you're stupid enough to spend way beyond your means.