Another problem Bradford have is that I don't think the sale of their best players will bring in as much cash as they may hope.

Bateman is the one who seems to be attracting all the attention, but he's only 18 and some of the figures being mentioned in his case are frankly ridiculous.

Two that I would be interested in are the centre, Lulia - because he's a big unit (but of course he's an overseas player, and that seems to be against our policy at present) and Kopczak (but we've already got lots of big forwards - so the same reservation must apply to Scruton and Langley).

We also have to be wary of 'star players' in teams who aren't even in the top eight. Usually it's a sign that they're not really star players.

I would look more at Jefferies more than Sammut. And even then I don't think he is that good either.

I'd have Ainscough back

I think DaveO has hacked into nikos' account.

I want Karl Pryce back, he was a big loss for Wigan !

Sammut is a poor man's Dennis Moran.

We could have Sammut at 7 creating chances for a Karl Pryce/Patrick Ah Van wing/centre partnership - mouth watering prospect. Get rid of Goulding and Charnley, they're rubbish!

Why put a bid in for a player when he may well be available and OOC by July 11th. That's probably why no bids for players have been received.

I wouldnt say hes THAT bad

The fact something designed to prevent something occurring failed to do so doesn't mean it has nothing to do with the situation. The fact the FSA failed regulate the banks prior to 2008 doesn't stop people blaming the lack of regulation [ias well as[/i the banks themseleves for the situation. In fact the failure of regulation is seen as one of the major causes of the problem. It is the same here and the situation Bradford find themselves in is a result of board decisions [uand[/u a failure of the cap to live up to its stated purpose as outlined in section 1.1.3 of the operational rules. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

The only thing absurd is your continued belief that the aims an objectives of a particular policy can be seen in anyway contributing to the current situation at Bradford, especially so given the Bulls were spending below the previous 50% threshold on the cap. Just to put this particular absurd thinking to bed, seeing as Bradford are losing about £200k a month according to reports, the players would need to pay the club in order for the cap to meet to its objectives. Bilko's excellent match preview for the Bradford game shows just how the Bulls have got into the mess they have, not surprisingly it's about income generation not matching expenditure, not what some aims and objective say on a piece of paper.

As for the FSA analogy, the how you can even try to make some connection between how the money markets need to manage risk, with the knock-on effects to the rest of the economy and the RFL having a salary cap only you know.

As you obviously are desperate to blame the RFL as part of the problem, look at why the Bulls were given a license.

You are desperately to try and dig yourself out a hole but you keep digging. I picked the right word for your position in absurd. Your position that the salary cap has never had and does not have anything to do with clubs going bust is nonsense. Failure of regulations to designed to prevent such things occurring are complicit in the problem.

Your suggestion I am trying to "try to make some connection between how the money markets need to manage risk, with the knock-on effects to the rest of the economy and the RFL having a salary cap only you know" it a blatant misrepresentation of my point but then you would have to do that because you can't argue against the actual point I made. It is a fact that people blame the failure of regulation as a factor in the banking crisis and not just those running the banks. It is the same here. Failure of regulation is clearly a factor in RL clubs going bust [ias well as[/i the decisions of those running the clubs. The analogy is simple and sound. I am sure everyone can see this.