Quote ="littlerich"I don't know what the answer is - some kind of "live" monitoring of finances? How could they have forseen or stopped Bradford from racking the debts up? Do they stop Huddersfield and London from doing what they're doing now? (selling the game cheap and spending way way over their income?). Something has to give because there could be 3 or 4 more clubs doing what Bradford have done shortly. Maybe a realisation that some clubs cannot actually afford a fully FT squad?'"
There is some sort of live monitoring but the question is how much do you want to spend on monitoring people who should be doing the right job in the first place ?
Personally, I wouldn't permit borrowing off the chairman or any other director. If they want to give a club some money, fine. I'd make exceptions for maybe some capital project that would generate income but there'd have to be a realistic repayment programme in place and if that programme's not met, the director chips in the shortfall.
It's only by "lifting the veil" of incorporacy and making directors truly responsible financially for the risks they take that we'll get back to reality.
Of course, this would all be totally unpalatable to the clubs and it'll never get passed. So we're stuck with what we've got.
In the meantime, we can all help by not calling on the directors to sign Billy Slater everytime we lose more than two games in a row.
Only one team in the league wins the Grand Final.