Not necessarily, they may have been able to put up some significant collateral which may or may not belong to the club.

Time to reduce the cap then and get clubs operating at a financial level they can afford?

Personally I'd rather have a sport that lives to it's means and gives younger players a chance than one that is artificially boosted in quality by splashing money it doesn't have on antipodean imports. All under the pretence that it helps the national team that really no one gives a sh*t about.

I don't think we should stifle the better run clubs with a lower salary cap just because Bradford choose to pay Jamie Langley over £100k a year*. If a club chooses to live above it's means then this kind of thing will happen. Look at London - utilizing the full cap doesn't guarantee success either.

[size*Probably[/size

How long until the players are reduced to washing cars etc to raise funds again ?

They can't complain, if they'd have bothered to make the CC final they would have secured lots of revenue for the club.

Sad times on the back of sad times for the fans.

Good luck Bradford.

Couldn't they get a loan off their sponsors ??

maybe there's no money as its all gone on Robbie's supply of fake tan since he's gone back to Odsal






that was a joke btw .....

Yeah absolutely...why should leeds for eg. be dragged down to bradford's level because of the latter's own failings? But something has to be done because a number of club owners clearly can't be trusted with a cheque book.

Perhaps the cap should be fitted (see what I did there ) to each club based on their overall income/turnover etc like the new FFP rules coming into football. Yes it might make SL too one-sided but I'd hardly say the salary cap as it stands is providing a thoroughly competitive SL anyway.

Is this one of the reasons why elliot whitehead was sold?

Circular though, isn't it? There's a few clubs, maybe as many as 8 or 9, who if they decided unilaterally to start living within their means, would see those means decrease in a downward spiral.

Spending the full cap might not guarantee success, but spending significantly under it, pretty much ensures failure.

If it was 3 or 4 clubs struggling financially and the rest thriving, they could be cut adrift and the rest could happily sail away. Unfortunately, it is the other way around - 3 or 4 doing well, the rest struggling. And 3 or 4 isn't enough to run a league. The top clubs need to be 'stifled' because there are so few of them and they need somebody to play, who can 'challenge' them. They'll carry on winning every year, but once they start winning every week interest will wane quickly.

The weakness of other clubs holding Leeds or Wigan back might well frustrate, but to a large extent it (the other's weakness) is what their success is built on. If by some miracle there were suddenly a dozen other big clubs competing with you with similar resource, you'd need a good deal less brasso. If the weak got even weaker, then where's the challenge? The big clubs have got the rest exactly where they'd want them, I imagine.

tbf, at this stage it seems to be 'only' a cashflow issue - no need for the last rites yet!

There must be a couple more Burgesses in a cupboard somewhere they can flog to Uncle Russ.

I hope you are right

Well having spoken by email to the Bulls general manager about it, it is just a cash flow issue with Mr Khan already putting in 800k this year to help cover short falls in income. It's just some people hear one thing and assume the worst without getting an understanding of the situation.

Breeding season was only last month. They've got some but they need fleaing and neutering before they can be sold.