How does that address the additional Manchester fixture for Leeds?

That third Leeds fixture means that no matter what happens, Leeds are going to be advantaged or disadvantaged in some way. If all Bradford games are taken out they'll had played one game less than anyone else.

If the worse happens (which I don't expect anyway) I'd suggest, all home and away fixtures v Bradford are taken off the records completely, but the neutral fixture Leeds had at Manchester stays on the record. That way all teams are being treated the same in terms of home and away games and Leeds play the same number of games as everyone else.

Nothing is going to be perfect but I'd say that's about as fair as it could be.

Because they removed the "50% of income or £1.6m whichever is the lower" rule. All clubs can spend to the cap limit now regardless of if they can afford to. As I am sure you remember this change was introduced so the cap could be "live" following the outrage from the likes of Cas at Wigan's cap-breaking antics. So it's not the fault of the cap if a club is stupid enough to overspend but it is certainly true the cap has nothing to do with ensuring clubs do not go bust.

well, we've not managed to sort out any concensus as to how to procede. what hope is there that the RFL can?

what a complete & utter mess

The cap have never had anything to do with whether clubs go bust or not. Whenever something like the Bulls situation happens the usual suspects come out with the usual tosh trying to blame the cap in some way, instead of focusing on Directors of clubs mismanaging the finances.

Works in the same way as my proposal to give everybody the points (my way would allow Widnes to look a bit better if a casual viewer scanned the table).

I also think it will be a moot point anyway.

rlhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18609190rl

"Super League bosses will allow Bradford Bulls to finish the season as a new company even if the club goes into liquidation in the coming weeks. "

good news

Makes a total nonsense of the new company though if the new company can inherit the old companies records, points, the only thing they lose is the debt.

Surely they are either the same old company, or a new company, they can't be both.

Wrong. The cap was ORIGINALLY introduced to prevent clubs overspending on players i.e. spending beyond their means. As DaveO has already highlighted.

Subsequently the cap was "twisted" to promote a "level playing field" (whatever that means) and the 50% rule quietly discarded.

This effectively re-created the ability for clubs to overspend.


WLA once again your ability to turn a perfectly sensible post into some kind of personal insult comes to the fore.

I suggest if you want to read "tosh", then it would be wise to look at your keyboard.

Of course. Don't you?

This was the original purpose of the CC.

Actually I don't.

However I was however under the obvious mis-understanding that you wanted the salary cap increasing when in fact you want it reducing. Sorry for my mis-understanding.

Yes it has and it still in fact does.

Form the operational rules in section E1preventing Clubs
trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable
financial arrangements;



The cap has clearly failed in "prevent(ing) Bradford (from) trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable
financial arrangements;" so it looks like the usual suspects know their facts and you, err, don't.

It is of course ultimately the Bulls directors fault but the cap has certainly failed in one of its stated purposes.

Had the 50% rule still been in force it may well not have.

It was only discarded when the cap went "live". It was still in the rules when it first went to a flat rate cap. They removed a safeguard that may well have protected the Bradford directors from themselves.

Insolvency laws exist for a reason, and unfortunately in cases like this you're often damned if you do and damned if you don't.

For instance, if Bradford Bulls folded, that means everyone associated with the club is out of work, and the company's assets - if any - are sold to repay creditors. Once that's done, that's it. Finished. Gone. Think Woolworths.

If someone comes along to buy the 'business', it doesn't necessarily mean the debts are completely wiped. The purchase price of the business goes towards paying the creditors, less IP fees. Granted, creditors may not get much compared with what they're owed, but vitally, it means that employees jobs are saved.

If going bust saves, in this case, 50 or so jobs, then is going bust really such a bad thing?

Their players become free agents, which means they're just as entitled to re-sign for Bradford as they are another club.

In fact at this stage in the season, probably only a reformed Bradford would be able to take them on.