Bob on Ted. Since the Harris case Leeds have gone one way both financially and playing wise and Bradford the other. Hetherington must be dancing on their grave, but what is the point of the Super League concept if one of our main city clubs gets stronger and stronger and the other gets weaker and weaker?

What's the betting that Leeds are the first vulture in to pick at the Bradford playing staff?

Seriously its about time some heads rolled at the RFL. They seem to leap from one fiasco to another and everyone there seems to just fumble along regardless. The licensing process is supposed to be robust and yet a number of clubs have got into difficulty. Its a poor reflection on out sport. I understand its the Bradford board that has created the mess but they are supposed to be subject to due diligence as part of the franchise award surely ?

I feel sorry for their fans and none of us should take any pleasure in seeing one of our bigger clubs at risk of going to the wall. There were over 11,000 at Odsal on Sunday watching a side that has been struggling and all in one of the most horrible places to watch a game, who would we replace them with at current that would pull in more than about 4000 fans ? Its a big city with no credible football team and you do wonder what they could achieve with a nice stadium and a decent team.

Not the first time the Bradford club has gone to the wall though is it, before my time but pretty sure it happened in the 1960's ?

Hopefully they will pull through.

I do think the bottom line is that the players are simply paid more money than the game can realistically afford. I have been saying this for years and it cannot go on forever. If we lose some top stars to the NRL or RU as the game has to cut its cloth accordingly then we might have to live with it or accept the fact more clubs will face extinction.

Bradford going bust wouldn't do Leeds or Hetherington any good any more than Saints disappearing would help Wigan.

The Harris case, as well as the rest of Bradford's problems, was down to Caisley not Hetherington.

In terms of picking the bones, I can think of maybe one Bradford player who would get into Leeds's best 19-man squad.

Other than that your post is spot on.

The very fact the RBS have been named and are reducing the clubs facilities adds to the inevitability that the club will not survive in its present format. The RBS are going through turmoil themselves and are pulling or calling in facilities left right and centre irrespective of how the business is managed or run

The Bank will have you believe they are lending to businesses but all they are doing is calling in other companies debts and then lending that out again and it looks like the bulls will fall foul of this

So whoever sold the ground has made a smart move indeed

Maybe not now, but you would be daft not to take a longer term punt on Burgess, Whitehead, Kopjack(sp?) or Bateman at a knock down price.

Very true and for Bradford the only logical way to go. It's not very nice, especially if you're a tradesman owed money but administration is almost painless for the company. Quite impressed with the RL in covering their backsides by buying the ground.

They do have some good prospects, and personally I'd rather see them stay with a healthy Bradford. If they can't stay at Bradford, I suppose I'd rather have Bateman at my club than at someone else's.

But which way do you want it? In your last two posts you say either you're daft (if you don't try to sign them) or you're a vulture (if you do).

I'd rather see Bradford pull through without having to gid rid of star prospects. However, if they must sell players, I'd like us to go in for Bateman, maybe Whitehead (although, that'd be another second rower).

Bradford got any good, young centres?

Royal Bank for fecking Scotland.

Say no more. Idiots.

There are arguments for and against administration, I feel.

The cons are that creditors won't get back everything they are owed, and the owners take a financial hit.

The pros, however, are that it protects employment. protects customers and protects goodwill, which is precicely why it exists, is legal and is not (if used correctly of course) immoral.

What you have to weigh up is whether it's worth creditors getting an extra few quid at the expense of a load of jobs lost.

Would you invest your hard earned money in the current climate to the Bulls when the same people are going to be running the club? This should highlight what a god send IFL was when he bought us, a few years ago i was having a pint with McManus from Saints and he said nobody takes over a SL club to make money but it needs someone with money who loves the game to keep pumping money in, as it stands there only a few clubs who are profitable, long term its not good for the game.

It was the salary cap that was supposed to stop teams going bust not the franchise system!

However because everyone blew a gasket about Wigan breaking the cap they made it "live" which meant they had to scrap the 50% of income maximum bit. All teams can now spend to the level of the cap whether they can afford it or not.

You are also forgetting Bradford lost a court case to Leeds over signing Harris and had to pay compensation and have been fined for salary cap breaches themselves.

In other words there is probably a combination of factors (some of their own making) all conspiring against Bradford financially so to suggest they are in this state just because of the franchise system is a joke.

i thought the franchise was there so the weaker teams had a chance to build a decent team over the 3 years rather than coming close to the cap or putting themselves in financial difficulties trying to compete within the promotion relegation system, either way Bradfors are knackered at moment

From that point of view it was there to do away with the yo-yo of P&R which had its own seriously bad financial consequences. So instead of panic buying players at over the odds wages to avoid the drop clubs could put up with a season or two down the bottom without breaking the bank to avoid relegation. I don't see Bradford as having been big spenders anyway so I am not sure why the franchise system can be said to have failed in that respect for them.

A big selling point of the salary cap used to be the 50% rule which went out of the window not because the franchise system came in but just so the cap could go live.

It's pretty clear whatever auditing is supposed to go on within the franchise system to assess a clubs financial worthiness is pretty rubbish otherwise Bradford would surely not have been given a Grade B license. Then again if it is RBS who are calling in loans that were previously serviceable you have to ask has the rug been pulled from under the club? Either way that doesn't mean the idea of franchising is bad and doesn't mean of we didn't have it they would not be in the same boat anyway.

These are the objectives of the RFL set when bringing in the Salary Cap over 15 years ago...


[i- To protect the integrity of the Super League Competition by ensuring that the determinative factor in the sporting outcome is on-field sporting merit and not off-field financial considerations.

- To ensure that the Super League Competition remains competitive and therefore attractive to spectators and commercial partners by preventing clubs with greater financial resources dominating the competition and by ensuring a balanced spread of players among the participating clubs.

- To protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements, and;

- By means of foregoing, to protect the welfare and interests of players participating in the Super League competition and of all those aspiring to participate in the Super League Competition.[/i

Can somebody tell me please which of these objectives have been met?

Time to scrap the cap!