I think Kopczak, would be a slight improvement to our front row not much but rather him over James, Boyle. That Manuokafoa, don't think he's worth the quota slot and I think their 2 young back rower are destined for bigger and things than SCR. Also not sure on his age but Elima would add something but would rather Dixon who were supposedly linked with?

If makes you wonder if the old semi-professional system of paying winning or losing money was the best option for a sport of our size? In the old format if your team were losing games and your gates were down you weren’t paying the players silly money for failure. Likewise if you were winning you would get more through the turnstiles to allow a club to pay winning money.

Furthermore if a club were struggling financially they could just sell a player or two to balance the books. The problem these days is a teams budget is fixed longer term with player contracts and if that club's crowds drop and/or sponsorship reduces it leaves them completely in the p**p because they don't have assets anymore.

I doubt this would improve things, and suspect it would make them worse. Clubs (including Bradford) went under during the semi-professional days, and if we went back to semi-professional, there'd be an exodus of top players to union. The problem isn't players being full time or part time, it's clubs being badly run. Most clubs run at a loss, but some (including our own) are able to prevent those losses getting out of hand. Some aren't.

In my opinion a club could be run well and still go under because they have no assets now. For instance assume the economy gets even worse, unemployment rises even more and a club like St Helens lost 4,000 off their average gates (800,000) and a few big sponsors (100,000). Saints will be at max cap with 1-3 year player contract commitments they wouldn't be able to meet without somebody putting their hand in their pocket. What if that person or people don't exist?

While I have sympathy for anyone made redundant and the fans of the club this situation is the fault of 2 bodies of people.
1. Bradford's board
2. The RFL

All of this has one central issue; SALARY CAP! The Bradford board is to blame for continually spending up to and beyond the Cap (let us not forget that they have been caught breaking the Salary Cap twice).

The RFL are to blame for allowing them to do this with the minimum punishment along with the other clubs who have been caught and are blatently flouting the current rules without being called to task. If the sanctions for breaking the Cap had been greater, a la Melbourne Storm for example, then there would have been less temptation for Bradford to break it. The fact that the RFL allowed them to do it and win SL titles in the process and allowed other clubs to do it so that Bradford felt pressure to keep pace led to this situation arising.

Salford are continually criticised by fans both on here and at matches for not "breaking the bank" to keep players or sign more high profile players. I have it on good authority however, that we deliberately do not spend anywhere near the Salary Cap so as to avoid this kind of predicament. Now some will say (like the Bulls fan who I had a frank discussion with at our recent home game) "how many trophies have you won?" Perhaps so, but at least we still have a club to support and we can say with pride that what we do achieve we have done so without breaking the rules!

I hope a solution can be found as I don't want to see any club go out of business. However, this should serve as a warning to the powers that be that they need to be more proactive and strict with the people running our clubs to ensure that the Salary Cap does what it was inteneded to do in the first place. Prevent clubs from spending beyond their means and deliver a fairer more balance competition where all clubs have a reasonable chance of survival.

Well said, Pete.

I feel for the fans, and you have a fair point with regards to poor management behind the scenes coupled with poor decision-making from the RFL.