but still not a salary cap breach as OP stated.

Irrelevant to the subject of the thread.

Adey i often read this forum for updates as a concerned outsider, i want you guys to survive and sympathise as a wakefield fan (no really i do) but sometimes i think you all just put these kind of comments on out of embarrassment. Like the one i quoted from you the other day that just seemed to slate Davey for contributing time and money to OUR sport.
I know you'll have people gunning for you but come on Bulls spent more than they should have done went bust and are now been bailed out big time. we can all have an opinion on that. and if the OP's is that 6 points compared to he amount spent on player salary's is pathetic then cop for it

The OP's opinion is that we should be docked a further 6 points due to breaching the salary, ok but it has been proved by adey that this salary crap hasnt been breached making this argument or opinion redudant...

Sure everyone can have their own personal opinion on any matter they like the problem comes when it is a completely wrong opinion and you try to impose it on others by posting it in such a way!

If you're a Wakefield fan then you are in no position to complain. If Bradford are bought out of admin then it is no different to what happened to Wakefield. Wakefield received a 4 point deduction, yet you are demanding that Bradford receive more punishment?

sure the sl cap wasn't breached but the lets not pay more than we can afford cap of every business and every person who posts on here was.

this is an open forum so get used to people imposing opinions, and reasonable posters can subvert their OPs in to a reasonable debate. Lets face it it's the zealots who are going to start these conversations they love to shout. as if to prove that the sle bid that was the conspiracy theory from many isn't in it according to the beeeb

when and where did i? this is one of those blushing posts.

As did Wakey, and went bust for the same reason. Although it is still far from certain we would have gone bust had the Intervention not taken place (even if I suspect we would not have liked the alternative very much either). But you are missing the point. The OP made a false statement, and that has been debunked. There are plenty of other, sensible threads for debating sensible matters such as you allude to.

As for Davy, I wonder whether - in the long run - these very wealthy benefactors, who bankroll clubs for millions sometimes every year, are actually doing the sport any good in the long term? We are ending up with a batch of clubs that would go bust immediately if their owners withdrew, that are nowhere near standing on their own. At least Bulls managed throughout the first 16 years of SL to stand on their own, without a mega-rich owner. That is some achievement when set against our contemporaries. The Great Recession was always going to hit hardest those clubs that were having to stand on their own.

Did you use a random word generator to come up with that?

Which is why I put a little question mark at the end, as it was asking you something. As you seemed to be sympathising with the idiotic OP.

Completely agree with you on this but my point is that this 'more than we can afford cap' is different to the official salary cap the OP referred to.

Like i said everyone is entitled to any opinion they care to have and i am always open to intelligent debate with anyone aslong as they can back up any opinion i just feel this is not such.

Debate is healthy, diving in feet first isnt!:D