Quote: Fully "Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.'" Did they really?? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-6003018 www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/8898655/ It seems they above reported it as under capitalised.

Quote: Fully "Not going to argue - it's futile when you cannot have a reasonable discussion on here with you Bren. If you prefer to act childish, so be it. However, it has always been mentioned in tandem with debt, as this video also proves but all and sundry have reported it as debts and therefore I must question why the club have not bothered to correct this if it is indeed an error. I no doubt expect some other childish response; this hasn't even got anything to do with the other forum. It was a genuine point as to why it's referred to as debt everywhere and, in that sense, you can hardly ridicule people for stating that themselves.'" Did they really?? www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-6003018 www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/8898655/ It seems they above reported it as under capitalised.

That's just a re-hash of the original statement released on the club site. But since then it's been referred to as debt - both from people at the club - and also in national press. www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby-league ... ants-party www.totalrl.com/web/super-league ... -wildcats/ www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24940791 But besides that, the point of my comments were to highlight - in response to Bren - that this wasn't something dreamt up by people commenting, more it's just what people are reporting from elsewhere. Either it's debt or it isn't debt.

That's just a re-hash of the original statement released on the club site. But since then it's been referred to as debt - both from people at the club - and also in national press. www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby-league ... ants-party www.totalrl.com/web/super-league ... -wildcats/ www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24940791 But besides that, the point of my comments were to highlight - in response to Bren - that this wasn't something dreamt up by people commenting, more it's just what people are reporting from elsewhere. Either it's debt or it isn't debt.

Goodness me - what are we talking about here?

At the end of last summer we were faced with both an immediate debt - hence the fire sale of players to cash buyers who also, in some cases, took over those players contracts with immediate effect - and also had budgets for the coming season at a level which could not be sustained, hence the requirement to reduce the wage bill.

As I understand it, Bradford were / are in a similar position but have dealt with it differently. Their wage bill will have reduced and their back room staff is much smaller, but given that they are on half the SL money it still beggars belief that they could afford that squad!

All I seek (and I don't know the answer), is the assurance that we will be treated fairly and that we are all operating with the same level of support. If that is so, then let's get on with it!

The problem is, all this is based on half a fact.
Wakefield and Bradford have similar positions in that we both have debt and are under capitalised
But no one knows how close the income streams are, the value of the money from sponsors, the value of the wage bills being reduced.
If Manchester United had twice the debt and cash flow issues of us they'd be laughing. It's all relative.

If Bradford say they have sorted it without getting rid of more players (they have lost some as Bullmania explained) then so be it. Why doubt it and why care.
If they are telling fibs then we'll find out when they have no money left.

THIS ... I agree. They may have got rid of some players but Langley was on his way out the Bulls moaned every match nearly. Lulia wanted to go back to Aus. Look at the players you brought in Carvell won't have come cheap neither will Ferguson. George is a decent winger that won't be on peanuts. IT STINKS

Didn't you used to lay into Luke George?

Just out of interest, which radio station was this and approximately what time? Ta.

You are right about the relevance - Saints and HKR have much bigger debts, but can service them. I just don't like the idea of the debt being to the governing body for all of us - it's not right.

Of course I care - if my club goes out of SL because someone else 'bent' the rules then I'm allowed to pee'd off!

If we have parity and we lose out, so be it!

I remain unconvinced that they can finance what they have with their income, but could just be plain old wrong!

I don't see what actually stinks about it? If they sign the entire Kangaroo team, then so be it, it'll go one way or another no matter what. I'm afraid to say the OP just smacked of bitterness.

Something along the lines of "we lost the core of our squad so why didn't they"

Indeed, and all from a poster who is usually so rational.

Sounds like Bulls have signed PNG prop Mexico subject to getting a visa.