In terms of the Cap it was supposed to level out the playing field, the difficulty has been that clubs have not been able to spend up to the cap. If all clubs spent to the cap, then the spread of players would be more even.

I am not advocating that clubs over spend, but I think the assumption was that after a few years all clubs would head to the cap and so even out the players.

In terms of protecting clubs from themselves, it could be done. The question is whether is should be done?

A simple condition of the licence could be that over a 3 year period clubs must breakeven. Any club who does not would lose the licence no questions.

However that requires the RFL to be hardline and it would stop clubs developing stadia, Saints have incurred huge losses to build a new stadium. Would the RFL have the strength of will to follow through? Would clubs who make losses take the RFL to court to try and justify a new licence? Clubs would have to cut costs and would fans accept a drop in playing standards to secure the finances of their club, whilst other clubs with big money men donating huge cash injections to their teams storm ahead?

Like I say a breakeven cap could be imposed, the question is should it be, or should it simply be survival of the fittest with no regulation.

how about introducing something like the NFL draft system, where the bottom SL club gets first pick of any exploding talent & GF winners get to mop up the also-rans. If (say) a third of squad numbers were allocated this way it'd certainly level things at the start of a season & maybe even London would get to win a few.

No it isn't, and I agree that there would have to be a radical shake-up in core funding, but we can winge on about the cap or P&R 'til the cows come home, nowt's ever going to really stop there being such basic inequalities between teams until proper due-diligence and some sort of over-arching financial management (ie oversight) is put in place (whether by the RFL or the chairmen & owners collectively growing a pair).

(yes I know, too many syllables)

Yups, and in the mean time the cap drags us all down to the aspirations of the lower clubs.

sport is about winning, clubs should strive to improve and better themselves. Level playing fields don't exist and anyone who tries to implement such a system in Rugby league are doing one thing only, dragging all clubs on a downward spiral to the lowest common denominator....ie the weakest club.

Successful, well managed clubs who invest in a youth policy should reap the rewards and long term benefits from it....afterall during the olympics I am sure I didn't see Usain Bolt, Mo Farah, Jess Ennis or Bradley Wiggins participate with their legs tied together or weights hanging round their necks.... They put the hard work in and were rewarded for it, not penalised by the authoritories trying to make it a level playing field......

The sooner we get back to rewarding successful clubs and talented players the sooner we will begin to be competitive on an International againt the Aussies

Agreed but there must be somthin put in place where clubs must live within their means and not bankrupt themselves chasing glory. The cap should be based on previous years accounts and be individual per club with no limit.

imo it has served its purpose and now outdated but we cannot let teams go mental spending money they dont have

Agree with both of these.

A club that develops its own players and actively goes out to increase its crowd figures and promote itself should be rewarded accordingly. There should however be a system in place to stop clubs spending what they haven't got.

THEREFORE - There should be a SC that is relative to your accounts from the year previous. Sell more seats and more shirts and you'll have more to spend on your squad. Your squad should contain a certain number of players from your academy, whether they are exempt in any way from the cap would need to be decided but that could put clubs in trouble trying to keep players they can't afford. It would stop the smaller clubs sitting on their arris doing nothing off the field other than dying a slow and painful death, and it would stop clubs buying players from the NRL and other clubs and totally ignoring those playing on their doorstep.

The above were two things that were supposed to come from the licensing, yet 4 years in we've had 3 clubs go bust and one of them did it twice. The RFL need to put their foot down now before its too late both domestically and Internationally.

And in answer to the original question, no Bradford should not be allowed in SL next year.

What? The Bulls went bust so how are they a better bet than 'Fax or anyone else? Because an ex-MP and a local businessman have put up £250K?

Also you would not "thrust" 'Fax or anyone else into SL. You would give them a franchise like Widens were given. If after three years they hadn't made a go of it - out they go. However you would hope as seems to be happening at Widnes the fact a club like 'Fax had a franchise investment would be easier to come by and they would make a go of it.

It really is bonkers to keep the Bulls in the league when it is organised on a franchise basis when they went bust.

The whole point of franchising is if you aren't up too it out you go. With that in mind they should already be gone. Results declared nul and void. Want a new club in Bradford? Absolutely fine, start at the bottom. If there is that much interest in the game there then it would take them about three or four seasons to be at the top of NL1 applying for a franchise.



Well if there really isn't a credible alternative to the Bulls we have a SL that is too big in the first place.

What makes them any different from the wakey and crusaders who both went bust yet given a 2nd chance, why shouldnt the bulls be afforded the same and who gives a damn who puts the cash up whether its an MP or a curry pedaler it dont make them any different from glover at wakey or Leneghan at Wigan they are putting there hard earned up and driving the clubs forward.

What do Fax or any other champioship club offer to superleague ? i have trawled through the archives and yet to find a club from that division with crowds higher than the bulls.

The bulls also have a worthwhile brand and good merchandising opportunities off the back of that brand.

Somethings are worth saving.

You got a a problem with the franchise system and the way it works take that up with the RFL as it they who set the criteria not the Bulls.

The Bulls and there new owners have a clean slate to work from debt free, thats business you dont like it write to the times or the RFL, we need to look after our own, god help me if we were on the front line with you

and London went bust too

Bit unfair expecting NL clubs to get better crowds as they have a poorer product, less talent and less away followings visiting their grounds.

The circumstances are completely different. For example the Crusaders new owners took on some of the debt owed by the old club which is why only got a four point deduction not six. There was none of this sign your ground over to the RFL and walk away from massive debts only to carry on playing on the same ground shenanigans.

When London went bust Mo Lindsay was against what happened there and I agreed with him.

I am not sure but I don't think either Wakefield or the Crusaders were actually wound up. The OK Bulls is a new company/club and the Bull's as was will be being wound up is how I understand it. If the OK Bulls are a new entity they have no more right to a SL place in 2013 than anyone else who is currently outside it.



It's a clubs AWAY following that determines a clubs worth to SL based on its crowd sizes and Bradford do not have a large travelling support. They would not be missed on that account.

What other teams offer SL would be determined by the outcome of their franchise bid. What do the OK bulls offer SL? A promise of £6m (a tiny amount of money in reality) invested in the ground that they have not yet secured seems to be the cornerstone of their business plan.



A brand which failed to secure them as large home crowds as they once had at the start of "Bullmania" and when they were a successful side without two years of loss leading season ticket prices.



You are right the RFL set the criteria. How the Bulls convinced the RFL they met it is the problem because they clearly can't have done.

They were given a grade B license which means they somehow convinced the RFL that they would meet the requirements to become a grade A club when judged against the criteria by the time the next round of licensing comes along.

That means they satisfied the RFL they would be meeting the criteria in these five areas if they were not already doing so in some of them:

a. Commercial, Marketing, Media and Community.
b. Facilities.
c. Finance.
d. Governance and Business Management.
e. Playing Strength and Player Performance Strategy.

They were given the franchise's on 26th July 2011 and were in administration exactly one year later with debts of £1,500,000. They sold the ground to the RFL at then end of January 2012 a mere seven months after they got their SL license. How they got a grade B license I have no idea.

Your having sport with us right?

The fact remains they all went BUST, however you pick the bones out of each individual case they had no money left in the coffers to pay bills.

In the crusaders case that was a complete and utter shambles, but nevertheless they remained in SL

The Bulls and the RFL took suitable action to secure a very big asset to the club whilst other issues where addressed.

They have been deducted the points accordingly and will potentailly remain in SL and quite rightly so, as other have been afforded that privelage and it would be morally wrong to not let the bulls remain in SL when 2 other clubs where allowed to remain.

The Bulls consortium will have contributed to the debts of the OLDCO and would not have got anything without it although guilfoyle will have creamed most of that, but again thats business.

The Bulls under the newco IMO are a far better option for SL than anything else out there at this stage and are a far better attraction for TV,commercial and game wise than any other club out there.




Maybe small but using that arguement why would you keep catalan in the SL, The Bulls offer far more to clubs inby being aan attractive tie to TV,HOSPITALITY ETC .



Unless there is a sugar daddy out there with cash and a real drive to push the club and its staff then no one out there at the moment could IMO come up with a franchise bid worth accepting and make serious improvements to SL.



See above comment re the Bulls being a far better and far more attractive game than an away trip to Halifax etc.

The comment about the ground etc seems a bit glib to be honest and i would think that the people who are taking over the club would have a far wide ranging plan in place to ensure the club got back to where they feel it should be, the ground would be used for securing of more investment which if managed correctly is no bad thing.



Not the fault of the new consortium of course.

Again you look back at the previous boards and it was a mish mash of bad managment and false promises that have lead to the demise of the club, however the same applies to wakey crusaders etc who were afforded the right to stay within SL and the Bulls should be given that as well.