Which bit of:

is so difficult to understand? The cap is no different to having a budget to live within your means, but if you spend beyond your budget it not the budget's fault is it? Bad management is to blame.

By the way if you think saying people were talking tosh is a personal insult you know neither the definition of "personal" nor "insult". Welcome back from your hibernation by the way, has it been nearly three months since a thread mentioned the cap?

What you actually said was:

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

Now given a stated aim of the cap is to "prevent(ing) Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements;" it is clearly supposed to have a lot to do with whether clubs go bust or not. It is supposed to help prevent it. As it was supposed to do when there was a 50% of turnover element. It has failed in this stated aim.

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

which for some reason you chose to ignore.

Not being funny WLA (and frankly without people who disagree, these forums would be dull), but which bit of DaveO's post above don't you understand?

If the 50% rule was kept in place it would help ensure clubs don't overspend. It wouldn't prevent it, of course, but it certainly would help.

I feel more for the poor sods who the Bulls owed money to and who on good faith expected to be paid duly,some poor family's with small business' will have been hit very hard
The folk who collectively donated the £500.000 to the fighting fund were being nothing more than oblivious to these sort of procedures

I have heard Fielden bleating about his donations to the cause and how it was money down the drain,oh really stuart you don't say, what did you think would happen to your money then?

the 50% rule is all well and good as long as any other expenditure by the club apart from players salaries does not exceed 50% of turnover as well.

Bradford spent less than 50% of their turnover on the salary cap.

Really? What did they spend the money on?

Which is what I paraphrased earlier - there was no need to repeat it again, but thanks anyway.



I didn't choose to ignore the bit about the Bulls Directors fault because it's what I said originally. For the second time it doesn't matter what the stated aim of the cap was, what I original said which you've seemed to disagree with again for some reason is that the cap has never had anything to do with a club going bust. Bad management is the only reason the Bulls are in the position they find themselves in. No matter what the stated aim of the cap on an RFL document says it has absolutely nothing to do with the Bulls spending much more than their income.

I'm still waiting for you and Dave to tell me how a document with some aims and objectives somehow made the Bulls Directors spend money they didn't have - was it a gun or knife the piece of paper held to their throats?



I actually agree with doing away with the flat cap and believe it should reward sensible ambition and investment, but even then a % of turnover is still a figure (like the flat cap figure) that doesn't stop clubs spending more on other areas on things they can't afford.

I've a soft spot for the Bulls, and I think even those who haven't don't want to see this happen to the club. It makes the game look amatuerish and has massive implications to the league in the future. Firstly, as the club has gone into administration, are they going to get a license next time they're given out? Will they be demoted at the end of the season (doubt it. The RFL would have to have a contingency plan in place for that to happen, and we all know they've none of them). Surely this proves that Bradford's application for a license was falsified in the first place. I hope they remain as a club, and continue to play at Odsall, but they shouldn't be allowed to claim a place in SL next year.

Also, intead of the fans having Belgian flags flying from their cars when they're going down the M62, from now on they should be made to have the Greece flag.

The RFL will keep Bradford in SL, what else will they do with odslum, turn it into the biggest Indian restaurant in England!!