I dont think we should scrap the cap but make it so it encourages clubs to bring in asmuch cash as possible. Make the cap so you can only spend 50% of your income on the top 25 earners in your squad. More income more to spend on players and more to develop all the other areas in your club.

The RFL need to come up more money for clubs aswell, Al Jazeera are being touted by the premier league as potential rivals to sky for the next tv deal, the RFL need to come up with a rival to sky, each club gets £1m a year from sky we need it to be more. I dont think we get anything for bbcs coverage of the CC, lets get channel 5 interested. The steady income of each club needs to be raised.

So hold back the clubs who work hard to generate business....!!!!! Its time some clubs started to realise we are living in the here and now, and not in some glorious past...!!!! For all our history, we have a vibrant marketing dept which is working hard on our behalf.

Bradford Northern went out of business in 1963 and then reformed to later become World Champions 3 times!

I can understand the passion and raw emotion causing Bradford fans to give and plead for donations, but what exactly will they be getting for their money? With the same people in charge, what's to say this won't happen again? Serious questions need to be asked about the club's long-term viability under the present stewardship. Giving money to the people who got the club in this situation doesn't sit right with me. If the RFL and the game as a whole uses this debacle as a reality check then maybe we as a sport will be able to learn valuable lessons and grow stronger. However I fear it will be papered over only to come back to haunt is in the not too distant future.

How have things( finances ) at Bradford changed so quickly after being awarded a 3yr franchise Mr RFL, answers please.

The fact that several clubs got into financial difficulty pre-cap is no reason to keep it
given it clearly does not prevent clubs getting into financial difficulty as we have seen with the Crusaders, London and now Bradford.

The cap has nothing to do with financial viability any more and has not ever since the 50% rule went out of the window.

The cap is all about trying to even out the competition and it doesn't even do that.

Bradford have hardly broken the bank on players recently anyway and things like the Harris settlement and God knows what else will have no doubt conspired against them but I'd guess over-paying players is not high on the list of reasons for their current problems.

So how do you explain the likes of Atkins and Ratchford at Warrington and McCarthy-Scarsbrook at Saints, despite their already being a hard cap in place?

At the end of the day the main reason for the longevity of the salary cap has been to increase competitive balance and that hasn't happened. 13 out of the 14 Grand Finals have been between, Leeds, Wigan, Saints and Bradford so exactly what has the salary cap achieved?

I think we need to forget about some of the smaller clubs for now and concentrate on having a league where we have 8 strong teams, which will see the standard of the competition increase. Having less financial constraints on clubs that can spend would see the quality increase too.

As it opposed to what it is now? Wigan, Warrington, Leeds and Saints competing for honours?

I agree. The RFL need to be encouraging Super League clubs to be actively seeking more sponsorship which in turn could allow clubs to spend more on salaries. I don't hold out much hope though when RFL do a deal with Stobart seeing no money exchanged, while Rugby Union sign a 5 year deal with Aviva worth £20m.

I've just finished my dissertation on this very subject focusing on issues with the Salary Cap so this news has been bang on for me and proved my point. The RFL have also made profit for the last 7 seasons, where has this money gone?

It's almost as if Rugby League in order to survive needs to become as commercialised as the North American sports. Whether fans like it or not, it could be a route which needs to be taken in order for a sport to survive.

I am not sure quite what you mean by "as commercialised as the North American sports" but as soon as the competition went full time across the board I was saying way back then that doing so implies a lot more money is required by the sport and also if you want players to be full time they will expect paying a lot of money because their career is short.

I think we want a pro sport on the cheap.

By that I mean that we need to be squeezing as much money as we can from all possible places. The adverts and sponsors for everything in the North American Sports maybe seen as a joke, but it makes a hell of a lot of money.

People continue to miss the point on the SC, I'm afraid.

Pointing to financial faliures in the pre-SC era is irrelevant to the question of whether the current system of financial controls on clubs (of which the SC is a major part) is working. It clearly isn't. The number of clubs that have got into serious financial difficulties in the SC era is astonishing - Bradford, Wakefield, Crusaders, London (several times), Widnes and the GatesHull and Shuddersfield fiascos spring to mind (there are probably others!).

Spending on players is only part of the problem, other expenditure needs to be controlled as well and we desperately need to get more revenue into the game.

Someone said that clubs can't afford players' wages. If that is true - bearing in mind the SC has not been raised in line with inflation and is therefore at least 30% lower in real terms than when it was brought in - RL is in a shocking state.

In a sense, yes, but the main reason RBS have acted now is because part of the loan was secured against Odsal, which is no longer a Bulls asset.

When I heard that news last night on Look North I couldn't believe it, what a monumental oversight by the Bulls. It's no wonder folk are reluctant to pledge.

Who has suggested that?

There are many I've heard suggesting, however, that RBS is not even a bank.