So Bradford gone, Wakey just behind

Maybe the Broncos will survive the cull next year!

yeh thats what they will tell you.... being the truth is another matter... you should know that more than most fans at bradford..we have found out the hard way too at hudds recently.

no wonder your wanting more money for kopzchak from us!

Funny, it wasn't a "cash flow issue" when Robbie Hunter-Paul was all over social media last week telling us all that the money was in the bank and that the players would be paid on the 31st as usual.

So either RHP lied, or he was lied to and then repeated it to a wider audience.

That the chairman then decides to come out "in the interests of openness" and fess up to not having the cash to pay the wages on time is hardly reflective of a professionally run organisation.

They are on half sky money as a penalty for getting into financial strife. I don't have a problem with this as long as future penalties to clubs are consistent. Another factor in the late wages is they have had few home games recently.however things don't look good when you don't pay wages on time however you dress it up and whatever line of business you are in

Based on what evidence are Wakey just behind?

And this is the new, sustainable Bulls??

Just sounds like they are spending more money than they have coming in. Again.

Live cap will stop that happening... oh, wait...

Is that true? You penalise a team struggling with money by giving them less money? Sounds daft if you ask me.

Strange

There were no rules in place to deal with what happened at Bradford. Ultimately their fate was decided by a committee of the other SL chairmen, who at the time were also propping them up financially (I'm not clear on whether they got that money back).
Opinion was divided, it seems fair to say. Omar Khan wanted assurances that the licence would be transferred to the newco and this was the compromise that was reached.

So they're in SL (to the annoyance of many fans of the bigger Championship clubs, I imagine) fighting with one hand behind their backs (to the annoyance of Bulls fans).

Wakefield got less support and fewer assurances, but Crusaders collapsed to their rescue, so in the end they probably benefitted from the relative lack of help they got.

Actually Wakefield got no support & no assurances, but at least certain vulture clubs took some of their better players for paltry amounts.

After reading the Rimmer stuff it may be better for a SL club to go into administration this season rather than next.

The money bradford aren't recieving is going to the other sl clubs,,is that right?.

Is it just a case then, of the other clubs getting there money back asap which is only fair,rather than all this nonsense about bradford being unfairly penalised.

Yes


Feel free to post a list of all this money you suggest other chairmen were propping up the old Bulls with.

Even if they did, feel free to explain why they should then be free to arrange their own preferential treatment, if their money had indeed been lost "propping up" the old club.

If you were a different creditor of the old club - say, a smallish local caterer - would you think it "only fair" that the Bulls forfeited share was distributed amongst all creditors who'd lost money, or just amongst those who happened to be chairmen? I must say the fairness escapes me, but perhaps you can explain it.

We can't have a system that just reduces everything to whatever the worst run/lowest revenue club can afford. All you do is accelerate the money drain from RL. You won't get sponsors if you don't have stars in the game. If you have really dramatic squad limits ( say no more than 15 players on more than 25k ) you don't even need a cap, because even the richest club can't stuff its bench with stars and would be forced to bring youth through to have a viable group of 25 to 30 to get through a season.