it seems apparent that Salford feel the RFL will not support their situation the same as they have done with Bradford. Anyone facing administration would sell assets to try and stay afloat, of course unless your immune to everything (like bradford)

Really, he has a point IMHO.

Is he really??? Why?

For pointing out the complete disparity and bias shown in 2 very similar circumstances?

Or because poor old Bradford can't be accused of doing anything wrong as they were actually very hard done to by the governing body - allowing them to complete the season with a full team that they could not afford by paying the players for them - I bet Salford wish the RFL are as hard on them!

Show your workings!!
Without knowing the ins and outs of both situations (and i'm sure you don't either) on the surface of it, the bulls seem to doing unto Salford what was not done unto themselves!!!
I think most Salford fans will disagree with you.

Pot,Kettle jog on..

Salford Fan here. I have no problem with what Bradford have done tbh. They asked the club about it, Vievers said yes as he only had 1 yr left on his contract and I would have been very surprised if they were going to offer him another contract after that to be fair. So they let him take up a 2 yr deal at Bradford. Nothing underhand,all done in the correct manner and both sides are happy!! Hopefully he goes well at Bradford but he never pulled up any trees with us so would be surprised. Means we get an average player off the wage bill and hopefully can replace him with someone better once budgets get agreed!!

Its rather obvious he can't debate in a sensible reasoned manner without breaking the AUP, so don't wait for a reply.

This. The Bulls had permission to speak with Sidlow and the deal has been in the pipeline long before Salford had a loan rejected by the Council. It seems the uncertainty has scuppered the Reds hopes of bringing in Platt though.

A little research on this subject from the OP would have prevented them starting a nonsense thread.

yeah i think this thread is a little OTT - Bradford still have the right to sign players and if one comes available they are quite within their rights to do so.

I think the OP was more about what wasn't done to Bradford, rather than wether or not bradford are in the right now.
Clearly a club in trouble is likely to lose their better players in such times, we know only too well that this is the case.
The fact that rather than let players go (and clearly they were unaffordable players) the Bulls hung on and made all the other staff redundant and were dependent on supporter and RFL hand outs, staff working for nothing, etc etc should IMO be remembered by all.
If Salford have allowed this sale that is fine, i can't honestly see how else they could act when they are struggling and they need to off load players/reduce costs/generate some money, however this clearly wasn't the case when the boot was on the other hoof!!
I haven't yet read how this would be a disaster for RL either, if Salford were to go belly up.............

Just saying

I think this is where the gripe is - At the minute Salford look like they're going to struggle to put out a decent side. I understand Salford gave Bradford permission to speak to Sidlow and Bradford have not really done anything wrong, however given where Salford are in terms of playing staff do we think they would just release players if they thought that the governing body was going to look after them in the same way as they did Bradford??
It's only my opinion, so may well be completely wrong (it quite often is), but I think Salford believe that they will not be treated in the same manner as Bradford were and as such have probably had no choice but to let players go.

As KC said - where are the quotes from the governing body or pundits saying what a disaster it would be to lose a club like Salford and encouraging supporters/businesses/other clubs to get behind them and prevent that happening??