Absolutely, dboy. Note that many on here argued that the "death spiral" was caused by the poor form of the McNamara years. Spending less on player salaries would have been unlikely to improve this form.

BF - I don't see how Bradford's problems are any more or less self-inflicted than Salford's. Each are historic clubs trying to make it work in the 21st century. They have their own particular circumstances and we have yet to see what the reponse will be to any Salford administration.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"Yes, he would. Well, yes, you are stating the obvious. So you alone have the inside gen on the TRUE reason why the RFL would not accept the conditions! The RFL and the SLE clubs are all liars, the RFL was acting under duress of the clubs. Riiight. One of the dottier conspiracy theories, that one! It is as I have said elsewhere the only thing they can do. The SLE clubs are not the long or even medium owner of the Bulls, only a new owner - if one ever comes forward and is accepted - could enter into any negotiations, sign or re-sign players or staff, and that much is obvious. So it isn't anything at all to do with not wanting (or wanting) the Bulls in SL, it is simply being fair to players whose livelihoods we are talking about. If they don't have any owner to talk to - what would YOU have them do? The reality is that it is now very hard to see a way for a new owner to be in place in time to save the main part of the squad and be in a position to even ask the RFL the 2013 SL question, but that is just timing, it's where we are are nothing can be done about it. Your RFL conspiracy theory is as dotty as it is unnecessary. More likely the truth is as was expressed yesterday by the RFL and Hetherington. Conspiracies not needed here.'" Not a conspiracy theory at all. The RFL and SL clubs are absolutely clear that the condition of SL status in 2013 would not be granted. This is because they do not think the Bulls should be in SL in 2013. Hardly some deep dark conspiracy. The RFL will encourage players to find other clubs because they know the Bulls will be in the championship, at best, in 2013. If they wanted a Bulls SL team they would try and hold onto your key quality players - instead they are encouraging them to go. Where did hetherington and the RFL state that they were keeping the Bulls in SL in 2013? Must have missed it. I saw this: www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19986.php Interestingly I am sure you spotted the inaccuracy here? (we both know GH was not present, in body, at Red Hall for the meeting )

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"Yes, he would. Well, yes, you are stating the obvious. So you alone have the inside gen on the TRUE reason why the RFL would not accept the conditions! The RFL and the SLE clubs are all liars, the RFL was acting under duress of the clubs. Riiight. One of the dottier conspiracy theories, that one! It is as I have said elsewhere the only thing they can do. The SLE clubs are not the long or even medium owner of the Bulls, only a new owner - if one ever comes forward and is accepted - could enter into any negotiations, sign or re-sign players or staff, and that much is obvious. So it isn't anything at all to do with not wanting (or wanting) the Bulls in SL, it is simply being fair to players whose livelihoods we are talking about. If they don't have any owner to talk to - what would YOU have them do? The reality is that it is now very hard to see a way for a new owner to be in place in time to save the main part of the squad and be in a position to even ask the RFL the 2013 SL question, but that is just timing, it's where we are are nothing can be done about it. Your RFL conspiracy theory is as dotty as it is unnecessary. More likely the truth is as was expressed yesterday by the RFL and Hetherington. Conspiracies not needed here.'" Not a conspiracy theory at all. The RFL and SL clubs are absolutely clear that the condition of SL status in 2013 would not be granted. This is because they do not think the Bulls should be in SL in 2013. Hardly some deep dark conspiracy. The RFL will encourage players to find other clubs because they know the Bulls will be in the championship, at best, in 2013. If they wanted a Bulls SL team they would try and hold onto your key quality players - instead they are encouraging them to go. Where did hetherington and the RFL state that they were keeping the Bulls in SL in 2013? Must have missed it. I saw this: www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19986.php Interestingly I am sure you spotted the inaccuracy here? (we both know GH was not present, in body, at Red Hall for the meeting )

Quote Cripesginger="Cripesginger"Not a conspiracy theory at all. The RFL and SL clubs are absolutely clear that the condition of SL status in 2013 would not be granted. This is because they do not think the Bulls should be in SL in 2013. Hardly some deep dark conspiracy. The RFL will encourage players to find other clubs because they know the Bulls will be in the championship, at best, in 2013. If they wanted a Bulls SL team they would try and hold onto your key quality players - instead they are encouraging them to go. Where did hetherington and the RFL state that they were keeping the Bulls in SL in 2013? Must have missed it. I saw this: www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19986.php Interestingly I am sure you spotted the inaccuracy here? (we both know GH was not present, in body, at Red Hall for the meeting )'" Don't want to admit it but i agree with what he is saying.

Quote Cripesginger="Cripesginger"Not a conspiracy theory at all. The RFL and SL clubs are absolutely clear that the condition of SL status in 2013 would not be granted. This is because they do not think the Bulls should be in SL in 2013. Hardly some deep dark conspiracy. The RFL will encourage players to find other clubs because they know the Bulls will be in the championship, at best, in 2013. If they wanted a Bulls SL team they would try and hold onto your key quality players - instead they are encouraging them to go. Where did hetherington and the RFL state that they were keeping the Bulls in SL in 2013? Must have missed it. I saw this: www.therhinos.co.uk/news/19986.php Interestingly I am sure you spotted the inaccuracy here? (we both know GH was not present, in body, at Red Hall for the meeting )'" Don't want to admit it but i agree with what he is saying.

So why avoid confirming that? Why make such a big deal about being unable to confirm the bulls continuation of licence, if the decision has been taken, why not confirm the Bulls wont have a licence?

payback. Clubs may want the Bulls in SL, but the probably dont want them to be better than them.
The bulls may, or may not be relegated, it remains to be seen.

Yes, it does make you wonder!! John Wilkinson's problem is being just too much the nice guy - it would be fascinating to have been a fly on the wall in the discussions leading up to this



My point is that our chairman and board have managed the club with a degree of financial prudence and again and again dipped into their own pockets to fund Salford's existence. It's been the case that we red supporters know we can't afford to pay up to the salary cap, we know that our best players get sold on to better and brighter things, but that has meant the club has survived. If you just list the Bradford errors - the Iestyn Harris deal, the lease sale and it's effect on your RBS relationship, the membership/VAT fiasco - you surely cannot deny those are self-inflicted issues that have brought about the current situation and didn't need to happen - yet there is a bailout?

The very clear message that Bullbuilder gave Blake Solly is that we don't want to hear what they think we want to hear, we want to hear an open honest view of what's coming despite how painful it may seem to be. Blake agreed and we look forward to those discussions as soon a the bid is accepted.

Whats the point allowing all our players to speak to other clubs? Sure allow the OOC players to, but why the contracted players? Doesn't this short term takeover mean at least those players are going to be getting paid for the immediate short term future? And the RFL, the players, and fans know that if the Bulls were to go bust, those players that did remain contracted to Bulls would find new clubs and quotas/caps would be relaxed to accommodate them at short notice. So if the doors are being left open for Bulls to remain in SL one way or another, why is it being left open with the chance that Bulls may have to completely rebuild a full SL squad in quick time? It's bang out of order.

i am pretty sure you have posted on here with information from your sources. you are not the only poster with contacts.

Shame to see you refer to sugar daddies. Hood used to do it all the time in a very disparaging way. A cheap shot at people willing to put money into the game.

lets not stop at Davy and Mcmanus. Hughes Wilkinson, Moran, lenaghan, hudgell, caddick and Glover are a few more.

i know SOC put money in at the start and the wolves directed money to bullbuilder and not the club. these shows of support are not the same thing as supporting the bulls to have a SL club in 2013.

Any more self-inflicted than Salford's failure to make the Barton move work? Or to sack Karl Harrison?

Clear nonsense. If ABC had come in and paid off all the debts and bought th club lock stock, then we would have continued on, and been in SL for the foreseeable. You know this, so why make up stuff? The Bulls' ongoing status as a SL club - so far as the RFL is concerned - will NOT BE CONSIDERED unless and until there is a buyer, and that buyer puts all their cards and details on the RFL table. To say that whatever bid came in, the decision has already been made to reject it, is, with respect, conspiracy nonsense.


I have said a few times that the procedures and timescales make me believe personally the SL boat has already sailed, though in the unlikley event of a big money bidder doing the business very quickly you never know. But your remark is another [inon sequitur[/i. SLE/RFL - put it whichever way you will - are not "encouraging" players to find other clubs, they seem to me to simply be being fair, since you (presumably) understand why the new owners SLE(E)Ltd cannot and will not sign or re-sign a single player? If not, read my earlier posts where I've explained it.




Interesting straw man, where did I or anyone claim that either of them made such a statement?

Haved I hit a raw nerve somewhere...?



I do NOT use the term "sugar daddies" in any disparaging way. It is merely a fact of life that at least ten (you forgot Pearson and O'Connor, but probably unfairly included Caddick now) of the SL clubs have been reliant on the largesse of their wealthy owner/investor in recent times.

And referring to others as friends is not the same as saying they would necesarily support the Bulls continuing tenure in SL. I would expect it would depend very much on the circumstances.

Which is why I keep saying that unless someone takes on the club pretty well "as is" - maybe with some allowance given to the damage that has been done as a result of the administration, and what would be involved to repair that - I cannot see the club remaining in SL, or surviving.

And I repeat the question - IF those things result in Salford's financial demise then can we expect SLE to bail us out?

And to answer your question - just look at Karl Harrison's record before the sacking - started well and went rapidly downhill, the Barton move I agree, the lack of marketing effort to attempt to galvanise the Greater Manchester public has been pitiful - but I would stress pitiful rather than downright incompetant - who did the due diligence on the Harris deal?, who examined the potetential effect of the sale of the lease?, who did the cash flow forecast on the season ticket pricing?