I'm not sure why the cap comes into this debate at all. The cap has little relevance to the Bradford Bulls.

The debts where not incurred by paying the players the maximum cap. Lets face it the money that the clubs get from Sky covers a huge chunk the players salaries. Is it £1million per club per year?

The debts are incurred on the non-playing staff and other creditors. Doing things like massive discounting on season tickets for 2 years running, legal fees on Harris and probably lots of other expenses that will never be explained.

Bradford were not liquidated so this is not a new company, it's the old company that has been bought. So for me the licence issue should not be in question. If they had been liquidated then yes they would be a new team and start from square 1 for mine.

But other teams have been in and out of administration paying % in the pound and they where not chucked out. I don't see why bradford should be made an example of just because they may end up paying hardly any percentage in the pound to the creditors.

It's the nature of administration, I suppose the creditors could ask for the administration to be called into question and that they could have got more £ from liquidation. But what could they have sold??? The Coral stand for scrap is the only think that springs to mind!

But the cap was supposed to give a level playing field, and protect clubs. As you rightly say thats not totally the fault of a cap the re Bulls... So what is the point of it? Same clubs in the same positions basically, Warrington have replaced Bulls in top four, and surprise surprise, money is the main reason. If its a level playing field, you can't just bail out failed businesses, if you expect clubs to be run on business lines. All this talk of them finishing in the ntop eight without the deductions is a smokescreen... If they were run properly, they would not have a points deduction. Time to look at the cap, the number of clubs in SL, and the way clubs are licenced methinks.

Sorry, double post...

<snip>



If they have bought the old company don't the new owners get its debts as well?

I mean if it hasn't been wound up how can the new owners walk away from the debt?

If they can do this legally its just as bad as winding one company up and starting another the day after debt free.

The new owners will have bought the assets off the administrator for a consideration i.e £150k and will now take on the day to day running of the business the old company will remain in administration and the administrtor will work on behalf of the creditors of the Old co to secure the best deal possible for the creditors who have lost out.

It would be commercial suicide if Khan and co take on the old company, unless the debts have been cleared by AN Other beforehand

Bradford out, bye-week for the wcc and a top 5 play-off next year please

Straight forward for me. If a club cannot pay its way it should be dropped down a division. Not sure its in the rules though, they have been penalised for going into administration, should that not be the end of it.

More important for me are what lessons are to be learned.
Wigan as a club should be planning for the future to avoid this ever hapening to us.
What happens if Lenagan walks away?
A supporters trust should be set up with funds in that trust not to be used except if we are threatened with liquidation.
£20 on the cost of every season ticket would raise circa £200k per annum.
£1 million over five years.
If it means helping to protect our club for future generations then i would support a scheme along these lines.

Leneghan is making sure that the club is on a sound footing financially by "organically growing" the company rather than bank rolling it and spending a lot of his own money.

I think occassionally he may have had to fund the odd transfer or other purchase but not to extent Whealan did.

The Bulls situation to me is complex and a web of lies and deciet, The former directors are blaming the previous board, the previous board are blaming the RBS, the RFL stepped in to buy the ground its all a complete hash and quite frankly needs a clean slate with new blood.

We have to give Khan & Co the benefit of the doubt as they have put there money where there mouth is and should be given the opportunity to deliver on there promises.

If we are not careful winding the bulls up IMO is a recipe for meltdown of the game as we at least need to retain some of the traditional heartland clubs and get that stabilised before we even consider expanding the game any further, we also have to consider the wider implications for the local economy as suppliers to the bulls under the new regime stand more chance to get some of the cash they may have lost back from the new business

Remember they are still not 100% home and dry as the RFL have to rubber stamp the whole thing 1st

So it is as I thought then. The old Bulls are in administration and will sooner or later be wound up with creditors not paid and the new OK Bulls are a completely new team and company who happen to be playing at the old Bulls ground.

If the OK bulls get a place in SL it will look like you can wrack up the debt, put a club into administration and set up another up to carry on as if nothing has happened. Also given the fact the OK Bulls are different team and company they don't have any claim to a SL place.

I dont think its quite so simple Dave, simply dumping debt and starting up again the very next day is something the law in the country stamped on many years ago, unless you have a very good administrtor in tow of course, however the public nature of this situ would have made it impossible to do this underhandedly.

Like i have said previously this whole thing isnt the doing of the new owners they need IMO to be given the opportunity to deliver on there promises, if theydont then they deserve all they get not the Club itself, the club must live on and not disappear.

Im of the opinion that the Bulls will not be the only casualty in the near future but we have to protect the heartland as a lot of communities are built on there rugby teams. get this stabilised then we can expand not exapand and contract the heartland

I know which is why I said it will[i looks like[/i you can do that. The impression given is the sport is not good for its debts and ignores its responsibilities to its creditors.

If on the other hand the new club is made to start at the bottom at least that sends the right message that the sport won't tolerate this. It also says you can not play fast and loose with a clubs finances if you are a current owner gambling that if it goes belly up for you the team will carry on as before under new owners with just 6 points docked.



I don't see how replacing Bradford with say Halifax goes against any of that.

The cap has nothing to do with our current situation. For what it's worth I would want Wigan to stay, rightly or wrongly the top league without certain clubs (including Wigan) just wouldn't feel right.