How the hell do the RFL expect to attract sponsors now after showing clear favouritism to Bradford? If I was a business I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. RFL bringing the game I love into disrepute.

They have shown financial support to retain the integrity of this years competition, other than that, they are essentially being fair, they have refused to guarantee a SL place for the Bulls past the end of this season

True they havent offered this level of support to others in the past, but they might well have to do it again in the near future , the game is approaching a time when changes are going to be needed for it to continue as a proffessional sport

Sorry mate but I'm not naive enough to think they woudl help any other club in the bottom few if they needed help.

Then SL will shortly become a 10 team competition, it isnt ' naivity ' on my part, I am probably the RFL s biggest critic on these boards, but bad times are coming and they are going to have to make some very unpleasant decisions shortly

They have two options, reduce the salary cap and see a drop in talent in the comp or cut teams to those that can bring in 3 mill a year.

Ageed, but what worries me about the future of the game is that I don't think that they're capable of it.

Well they do seem to be unable to see things coming along until it bites them on the harris, and then knee jerk reactions seem to be the norm, sometimes I think they believe their own publicity ' spin '

Given the (lack of) money and depth of playing talent in the sport a 10 team Super League is about the optimum number if we want to have a competitive, viable competition IMO.

Teams could play each other 3 times maintaining a 27 game season with a top 5 play-off system, and hopefully the four teams dropping down a level could help bring up the standard and interest in the competition below SL, and help establish a clearer path between the leagues.

We're going well o/t here but the problem with cutting any teams from the comp, is that the RFL can not be trusted to make a fiar judgement on which team(s) should be dropped.
It sure as hell wont be anything to do with playing performance and as we have seen, they cant base the decision on financial viability, so we may as well draw lots

I'm not sure where this figure of £3mil has come from but Bradford were bringing in £4.5m and were losing money. Clubs need far higher revenue than £3m. Which is why the 50% of income salary cap rule was scrapped.

I really can't see why you can't sustain a team on 3mill with a 1.6mill salary cap unless your paying a significant rental on your stadium. If Bradford were spending 2.9mill on things after salary cap then I'd love to know what?