mark moore put out a press release recently and then had to admit he didn't actually know what he was taking about. He'd basically got completely the wrong end of the stick.

So I'm not saying the wakey chair was dishonest or giving bs. I'm just saying I personally question whether wakey were threatened with relegation.

Like I said he doesn't seem to be one to BS. If he said administration wasn't a possibility due to the threat of demotion then I'm happy he got the right end of the stick. Its pretty much why Andrew Glover and James Elston stepped aside. Had Trinity been allowed to go into administration, wrongly as far as I'm concerned, and stay in SL they would still be running things and likely be mucking things up again.

To support your argument, can you please post, for each oif the 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons:

1 - the total player cost of the Bulls squad.

2 - the % of salary cap that represents?

You must have these figures to hand, since you are quite unequivocal in your statement.

Here's a thought:

A Superleague club is in the middle of a financial wrangle with a former owner and the main shareholder. In order to bring this matter to a head they purposefully fail to pay HMRC knowing that they will threaten to wind the club thus forcing administration and therefore allow them to move the sports club into a new limited company.

But....a spanner in the works....a new TV deal is announced and the club are party to the financials of the deal and in particular a £300,000 payment payable almost immediately. This would cause a major problem to said clubs plan as such a payment would immediately be swallowed by the former owner and be lost, so in a bid to isolate it they ask their tame creditor to apply for administration of the club with the promise they'll get their full money from the new company. The new company then buys the club for the exact value of the HMRC debt which is immediately satisfied by the Administrator.

30th January: TV deal announced with the club aware it will receive £300,000 in a weeks time.
31st January: Club goes into administration to avoid £300,000 going into the wrong company's hands.

Obviously this is purely speculation as if this were true then it would be illegal.

Where did I say RFL were trying to defraud HMRC? A club were being issued with a winding up order by HMRC. That doesn't happen if they are being paid.

There's an easy way to disprove that conspiracy too! that plan would require a modicum of communication, planning and skill to pull off which Bradford have shown they're incapable of ...

Except...the administrator would not be allowed to settle only the HMRC debt. And the "tame creditor" would probably hold a floating charge, to be in a position to appoint an administrator, so would get paid first anyway. After the administrator, of course. And it is unclear in what way the owner (sorry...you said former owner, right? My mistake...) could access, let alone "swallow" the £300k. And in any case, other than the administrator breaking the law regarding order of settling creditors, that hypothetical scenario would otherwise break no laws.

In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your argument.

And I see that, in desperation, you now refer to trimming (the number of bodies in) the squad, whereas your original assertion was about the cost of the squad. You clearly don't have THOSE numbers to hand either, though, since the 2012 squad was considerably larger than the squad is now.

Now, last time I checked, there was no rule to insist that every player was paid exactly the same. So, you could have the same number of players in squad B as in squad A, but at an average much lower cost.

Never mind chuck, better luck next time, eh?

You don't need the numbers to make an observation

You don't need facts to make up an argument either ...

(I don't necessarily disagree with the view that Bradford could/ should of cut more from there playing budget - but saying the above isn't going to win any argument!)