Quote Diavolo Rosso="Diavolo Rosso"Whether it was McNamara or Caisley's decision to restrict spending I don't know, but whoever it was is responsible for Bradford being 12th.'"
It was neither.
Under the Caisley regime the club was spending far more than it could afford. Don't take my word for it...the figures to prove it are all in the public domain if you know how to read a set of accounts.
But so were a number of other clubs a few years ago, especially Saints - and on an even bigger scale in a number of cases, especially in the early years when the Bulls were using most of the new-found income from Sky to develop the club's marketing and other infrastructures instead of splashing out on huge transfer fees and silly salaries. And indeed a good number of clubs still are spending well beyond their means.
The difference was that Caisley (who owned about a quarter of the Bulls - unlike most other clubs the Bulls have not had a single controlling shareholder) did not put in personal megabucks the way the likes of McManus, Moran, Wilkinson, Davy, Whelan, Lenaghan and to an extent Caddick did. Therefore there was no sugar daddy to make good the cash effect of the losses. Eventually reality had to set in. Form your own views about the circumstances and timing of Caisley (and then Noble) leaving, and of course the Fielden transfer.
Add to this a coach who seemed pretty effective when given the funds to buy in players and not develop players in-house, but pretty lost once that crutch was taken away, and the picture starts to become rather more clear.
McNamara appears to have inherited a poisoned chalice of a role, where the club had much less to spend than under his predecessor, and the academy system and youth development was seemingly nearly shot. Anyone who attended the recent Fans' Forum will know all about this. Indeed, McNamara has spent a large part of his time and effort in rectifying the near-fatal academy/development situation he inherited - with promising results for the future now.
Add in too the caution not to assume that the salary cap represents the total of what the players at a club receive, or is directly comparable between clubs. It depends also very much on things like the proportion of a player's package (especially overseas ones) which a club thinks it can justify in paying in non-PAYEable form, and the ability of a player (cos it can't be the club...) to secure payment for his image rights from an "unconnected" third party. And that assumes every club has been making complete and accurate salary cap declarations, of course. Some of these matters are subject to current investigation by HMRC and the RFL, and while certain clubs are seemingly pretty worried, I have it on strong authority that Bulls are not amongst them. Maybe that has some bearing on comparing squads between clubs? - whatever.
But taking all this lot together, it seems to me altogether unfair to blame the current regime for responsibility for all the (hopefully

temporary) decline that we have seen.
That said, its still hard to see how any of the above explains the repeated capitulations in defence we have seen time after time this year. You just sit and wait for it to happen - and that against Cas was totally and utterly unacceptable and I for one have totally lost patience with it now.