Bloody hell this whole hissy fit was because I phrased 'Bradford spent what the didn't have' as 'Bradford spent too much'. Ha
Fine, I have no issue with phrasing it as 'Bradford spent what they didn't have' it's the same thing. It wouldn't too much if they had it would it numbnuts.

What incredible insight, how did we all miss it

I can go to the pub and spend too much ( for a trip to the pub ) , I cannot go to the pub and spend what I DONT HAVE

NUMBNUTS

unless you've got a mate who'll buy the lease to your house!

If you were talking about the trip to the pub that sent you bankrupt. I would think it pretty obvious that spending too much, was also spending what you don't have.

I dont have mates that stupid

Genius sir.....sheer genius!

As I said, I dont have mates that stupid, whereas Bradford do have, which brings us nicely back to the OP

.....indeed

There is no such thing as "lower limit on what can be spent on wages" - do you think bradford are spending least on the salary cap?

I think every team has a core supporter base - those who would turn out regardless of what's going on on or off the pitch - I find it hard to imagine bradford will get anyone other than the people who fall into that category at the moment. And when you consider the attendances of London hold up at around 1000 for whippings every week - and London as well discussed here isn't the hotbed of rl like Bradford is - it doesn't seem out of sight an assumption.

Whether it's fair on the kids or not is another story, it could make their careers, it could break them. But that's another argument for other day.

I'm not saying the only thing they could do is cut the wage. But it needed to be done in this case. It needed to be done as soon as you needed to raise 500k by begging buckets - that source of revenue was clearly unsustainable, yet adjustments weren't made during the time bought by said begging buckets. Ultimately to raise revenue, the club needs assets, and it's a far harder task, especially whilst trying to cover said deficit.

Have they shown that? They've shown it's easy to cover poor financial plans with success, but the second your finances need success to continue, you are onto a road doomed to fail

If you are stupid enough to take all your money to the pub then that is your fault, nobody elses, especially if you then borrow some more that you have no way of paying back

Anyway Einstien as you have told us the answer to Bradfords problem ( Earn more, why nobody else thought of that I cant imagine ) , they'll be fine

So, given that we have agreed that Bradford were down the Pub getting hammered but ran out of money, so got their mate Nigel to buy the lease on their house so as to provide them with funds to stay sizzled.....here's the original Post!



Seconds Away.....round 2!

There is in terms of make up of your squad, you need to have a certain amount of professionals and there is a certain amount you need to pay a professional player. I think it works out at about £650k plus tax and NI.

You also need to remember that the begging buckets and admin came mid-season, players have contracts they can't just be cancelled.

There is, obviously an argument over how much Bradford should spend on wages, but there is a tipping point where revenue falls by more than you are saving in wages (don't forget it's not only fans who,would be reluctant to go watch a team getting smashed, but sponsors wouldn't want to be associated either and corporates wouldn't take clients either).

I think to say the they covered poor financials with success isn't necessarily true, who was running the bulls in to admin, wasn't who was taking them to glory. If who wasn't running them wasn't the same, there is no reason to think who they were run was the same,

I'd get Mr Bug a pint but get smokey to pay!

Maybe Mr Wood could help Bradford with some of the club saving techniques he perfected at Halifax. Start with a catchy new name. I see it now "Bradford Slightly Soiled Jockstraps". Winner

I Popped the above into the google translator and even it was mystified as to what the you are on about