And it does not follow from this, that Bradford have been operating at a level above themselves and need to drop down a level. Whilst it may make you feel better, if it doesn't actually address Bradford's problems it isn't the correct response.

I would be pretty confident that player salaries aren't accounting for much, if anything above 40% of Bradford's turnover. If they are turning over £5m then 1.6m is closer to 30%

Out of interest, what would you suggest would be the correct response?

It depends entirely on the situation. I would have kept Bradford in, given them their full tv share, and banned those involved in putting them in to admin from being involved in RL in pretty much any capacity.

This just gets better and better, so 1 st we have Mr Kahn didnt ' offer ' , then he did, now Bradfords problem isnt that they are spending more than they earn?

Ok then, what is Bradfords problem?

I have, so what is Bradfords problem? , how simple do you need it?

I'm sure they had a myriad of them ,not least being run by morons.

But rather go around in circles with you, I'll point out where you went wrong, I didn't say Bradford didn't spend more than they earned.

How is it a punishment if Bradford, as you have just said above, OFFERED it? Bradford were on the edge and the only way they could see their way out of trouble was to buy themselves out of trouble. It's their fault the other SL clubs are 50k each better off this and last year, nobody else's! They overspent (AGAIN) and the only way out was to spend some more.....genius it isn't!
Hindsight is a great ally, but in reality, the "new" owners knew that they were safe from relegation last year and rather than approach 2013 with a back of a beer mat strategy and hope fans turn up, they should have cut their cloth accordingly and at worst, finished bottom, but without the same level of debt they find themselves with now.

The real damage for 2014 and onwards is not the SKY money being halved this year. The real damage was the total and utter fiasco that was the clubs management in 2013.

All of these has been overseen and approved (multiple times it would seem) by the RFL......because as they helped bankroll it, they have a vested interest in its outcome!

There does seem to be a large proportion of the bradford faithful, who, instead of accepting cost cutting measures need to be taken (and in reality needed to be taken 5 years ago) still insist that raising capital is the better option. Whether it's holding concerts, or getting the charity buckets out, anyone who doesn't look at the situation bradford is in and say they need to accept a lower standard of playing for the sake of the existence of the club is mad. You can convolute matters all you want with attendance figure drops and speculation spending and any number of reasons why it's okay to carry on spending more than you can afford on players, but you can't escape the inescapable. Until the significant cut is made, Bradford will continue to teeter in this way (or they can find a competent, patient and funded individual.)

Oh and lowering 40% or even 30% of a clubs turnover is absolutely HUGE and I'm sure if you walked into business offering a way to reduce costs by that much they'd bite your hand off

It was a strange and unhealthy fudge.
It should really have been a case of:

Plan A. Strike a deal with the creditors.
Plan B. Newco means new start from the bottom. When licensing was so heavily predicated on the business side of things, it was ridiculous to say the licence resided with the club and that was separate from the company that owned and ran it.

It was complicated by Wakefield 'getting away' with a newco. No many cared because everybody thought they were on borrowed time - until Crusaders went under. Plus the RFL now had a vested interest and had bitten off more responsibility than they could chew. The flip side of granting licences was wielding the scythe and I don't think they had much stomach for it.

With hindsight, it seems bizarre that they took a £1.2m 'fine' over 2 years. Surely the creditors would have accepted less than that, rather than chuff all. More likely, it seems, the new venture was undercapitalised to the point that that wasn't an option and it underestimated costs and/or overestimated income.
People might say the money should have stayed with the Bulls or gone into the grassroots of the game. Certainly, rather than bribing the other clubs, a payment to the creditors would have been the honourable thing for the sport to do.
Obviously we don't want to put off new investors, but it doesn't create much trust in the sport if we provide so little incentive for them to pay any of a clubs outstanding debt.
Hull KR have had significant problems in the past and we're acutely aware that we rely on benefactors to survive as a full-time outfit still. So it's not my intention to kick them or any other club, it could be us all too easily. But you can't pursue a desired outcome in the face of reality. Well, you could but it'd be doomed and anyway, if it were all pre-determined we might as well just watch the wrestling.

Yes you didnt use those words, but you suggest with other words that this wasnt the problem

So what is Bradfords problem? , what has happened at Bradford that has resulted in them aquiring considerable debts?

So a Bribe then? Fair enough

You do that buy cutting the quality of your raw materials and try and sell an inferior product, your customers may no longer buy your product. If you keep cutting your cloth accordingly, you might find you have a piece of cloth too small to be of use