Could do, but it won't happen. If we start fining players, the ones we want to re-sign (eg. Lynch, Morrison, Newton) won't want to continue playing for us.

]

Sorry Adeybull did not see this before.

An increased salary cap would attract better quality players and would therefore increase the competitiveness. Is it any coincidence the football premiership is the most competitive it has ever been? They pay the best wages and therefore it attracts the best players in the world!

If players are continually under-performing do we really want them re-signed?

If it's a case of the players not playing how they're coached then theres a distinct lack of discipline. The coach shouldn't have his tactics questioned or ignored by the players he's coaching. If they are then he needs to correct that and that has to mean some ruffled feathers. There's no room for nice guys in charge at Bradford as they are at the moment. If Steve McNamara is going to get the club out of the hole they're in he's gonna have to be a complete barsteward in terms of kicking the bottoms of none performers.

You've get some players whinge about it, but the loudest whingers tend to be the ones that are getting bitten the hardest and they should not only shown the door but actively kicked thru it

OK understand your point, and yes I'm sure it would provided there was sufficient money in the game to fund the higher salaries. Unfortunately I don not think there is. We had a huge player salary explosion on the advent of Superleague, which proved unsustainable and help drive clubs to the wall (or the brink of it) - hence the introduction of the SC in the first place. In practice, any significant hike in the SC would likely only benefit that subset of clubs who have a wealthy backer (or those whose player-remuneration activities are now under the spotlight and would need an increase to enable them to continue with business as usual). You'd widen standards not narrow them because only a handful of clubs would be able to afford the higher salaries.

But you still never explained how a SC increase could have prevented a debacle like we saw on Friday? Theoretically both us and Wire are spending to or close to the cap (although Wire seem to have manged to fit some pretty expensive players under the cap somehow...) so the playing field should be level (people know my views on that...) so I'm puzzled!

If we increase, or totally drop the SC There will be a BIG top four. Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Hull. Then there'll be a few with a bit of money aswell - Saints & Hudds', then the rest wil be fighting to get in the bottom end of the playoffs.

I'm a bit cynical about these regular player things, i'd believe it a lot more if McNamara came out and actually said something. he's losing a the PR battle at the moment and apart from winning some games he needs to do something else.

Sorry but this article hasn't changed my mind about him needing to go.

I read this in the paper and the Can't drop players thing is BS. He can drop players but won't. He could have blooded younder players earlier in the year before we had so many injuries, one or two at a time. It's not like these lads are 16 year olds, most are 18/19 year olds. He could have played a forward or a back each week and given Lynch or Menzies/Morrison a rest during the game.
He still could do it and drop the under-peformers, maybe only 2 per game but it would still send a message. Probably hit them in the pocket which would have more of an effect. If we are going to lose then lose with players who are trying and learning. I don't think any other team could have made as many mistakes as we did on Friday even if they tried, it was as if they were trying to outdo each others stupidity......And most often they managed to do just that...

Sorry but that IMO is a load of rubbish. The academy teams at the times had some very good young players Nick Saxton, Paul Clarke, Richard Dobson, Matthew Bottom, Jason Boults, Matty Brooks, Ben Western, Richard Colley, John Parkinson, Ross Greenwood so developing the players wasn't a problem the issue was Noble playing them in the first team.

The academy u18's side is a very young team with a fair of the players having potential. But at the moment that's all it is. It's too hard to tell if any of the players will go on to make it I've seem many a top junior prospects disappear with out a trace. Evan if any of the lads do break through your talking 4 to 5 years before you can see them making a signifacant impact on the first team.

This is all very true, and is part of my reasoning that it (a) takes time to build a winning mix of seasoned top players and promising prodigies and (b) there is, absolutely, no guarantee that you will do it, but rebuilding is a process measured in years, not games.

In fairness to Noble the only player that has proved he wasnt given a fair chance is Atkins. I'm sure that if the others mentioned had genuine potential more of them would have made it elsewhere.

Clubs keep tabs on young players at other clubs and they would have been snapped up, as Atkins was, if other coaches believed that they had talent and werent being given a chance at Bradford.

The problem for Atkins at the time was we had a very strong back line; he was effectively fourth or even fifth choice at centre. There`s no doubt that, if fit, he`d get a game now!

4 of them quit all together because they couldn't see any chance of getting a chance.

That appears to still be the case really doesn't it?

That may be the case but it wasnt just the Bulls that didnt believe they were good enough. Every other SL club will have watched those 4 players, assessed them and decided not to take them on.

But it's a tough world and that in itself may show they didn't have the necessary dog and determination to make it at SL level.