Whilst it'll be a sad day to see a nice modern stadium lost to the sport of Rugby League, we can take comfort in the fact that we'll still have the pleasure of standing on the terraces of the 'iconic' Odsal that the RFL so kindly saved on behalf of us all. Dog track and all.

The only other variable is where you are in the season.

All other concerns aside, it could be argued that Bradford were assisted to ensure that

1) players were paid to the end of the season
2) the integrity of the competition wasn't distorted

But...there was an asset (called flogging the last bit of family silver)

The other precedents were Crusaders & Wakefield who got beggar-all help from the RFL. Although Crusaders players got quota exemptions - so that fits with the looking after the players POV.

It could provide the perfect opportunity for that fantastic RL stadium in Leigh to get to see SL every other week - every cloud eh.....

There are some differences between Salford and Bradford.

Bradford were given advances to get them to the end of the season. Imagine what it would have looked like had the team gone bust mid-season; secondly, imagine what that would have done to the league.

In terms of Salford, they're difficulties are in the off-season. An advance of payment in terms of Sky money might have an adverse effect - although I am not stating this with any certainty - down the line. They also have until January to find some investment (which I believe is when they're winding up petition is heard).

Thanks. When we go t*ts up I'll just think about how it's good for rugby league and all will be well again.

I don't claim to know what the right balance is, but one thing I do know is the attitude of " it would be OK if clubs spent less " is a naive one. Just like the current 'austerity' debate, there's an argument to be had about the best way to reduce the 'deficit' whether that be at a specifc club or the sport as a whole. You can spend less or earn more, both solve the problem. Clubs often gamble on wages hoping (often wrongly) that it'll put bums on seats and earn more money. In other words, they hope its an investment, not a cost. Likewise, star players attract TV viewers to the game as a whole.

If you think the only way forward is 'spend less' you need also to seriously ask where the growth is ever going to come from. Or maybe you don't care and prefer a managed transition to an amateur or semi-pro game. If so, you're entitled to that view, but please don't think that the magic solution to create a growing professional sport is just cost-cutting.

I've seen calls to lower the cap for instance, but IMO we then just lose more talent ( and don't forget its not all about superstars going to the NRL or Union, but the hidden loss of those younger players who are never tempted by the sport in the first place), and with that we lose more profile ( if that is even possible!) and lose more sponsor interest, meaning a smaller pot of money to work with....so what then....yep, lower the cap again....death spiral.

It really is wonderful to see that scrapping automatic promotion and relegation helped clubs secure their financial stability as the RFL said it would.

P&R, salary cap, both good lessons in the law of unintended consequences and food for thought for those who think central control of clubs' behaviour is the way forward. As with all dictatorships (self-imposed ones included)...you'd better make sure the one in charge knows what they're doing...

I guess all those ragging the RFL for not helping have missed the statements by Salford about how they are assisting in finding an investor?

Maybe they are, however, it seems like they need some cold hard cash, y’know like Bradford did.

Maybe Salford will go to the press appealing for £500k & the R.L family will all come to the rescue.

Maybe O’Conner will chuck a few quid into the pot & Sky put on a special “Boots’N’All” with Eddie & Stevo issuing a rallying cry.

Highly unlikely I would imagine after Salford publicly rubbished the Widnes SL application in 2008,despite not even being privvy to it.On the grounds of financial instability,ironically.He might send a rubber cheque instead.

How? The link between income and salary cap was scrapped years ago?

I love your dry, wicked sense of humour, others say 'no, he is serious' but I appreciate your sarcastic wit and business acumen.