Where's the proof for this same nugget what keeps cropping up. Peter Hood has said on numerous occasion's that we are spending to the full cap and the top players what come available we would still be in the market for. He's either telling the truth or lying and taking the fans for mugs.

I said "limited".

And I'm not naive enough to believe that the sum of what players receive - at some clubs anyway - is no more than the salary cap.

But if we ARE spending to the cap this year (and that begs the question of how Bird was to be funded?) then it would logical to assume that any funds for additional signings this year must indeed be limited?

Unless we could offload players to another club - but I suspect the ones who we might wish to offload would be the very ones other clubs would not want to take, especially on current packages?

Of course, if we...sorry the player's agent...could persuade some unconnected third party to pay the player direct a large wedge for his services in e.g promoting their services or products, and as a result the player felt happy signing for Bulls at a salary well below market cos he was already earning enough, well maybe we COULD manage it? Except that in this God-forsaken city, and with no sugar daddy, where is the queue of such unconnected businesses or persons?

Next year, with so many players off contract, should be a different story. Provided of course we don't get the Morans of this world gazumping us again.

And anyway, is Hood likely to tell the supporters all the commercial realities? I fear not, although I am on record as saying I do think that the club needs to be a little more candid if they are to better carry the support with them.

Hood said we had salary cap space left which would be used if the right player became available.
Why it was no different this year after Harris, Hape, Joe's, Evans wages came off the cap.
There's been candid about the realities and telling barefaced porkies about everything. IMO it would be better to say nothing at all than everything is OK.

Fair points Red (as always). My take, FWIW:



That bit puzzles me too...maybe that was how Bird was to be funded, or maybe - as I assumed - such funds were...limited? He HAD said earlier that the coach had been given the full salary cap to spend - which was not the same as saying it was being spent. I would really like to think we have some scope here tbh, and given the targets we missed out on in the close season maybe there IS more scope? (Does not change my argument about funds available for coaching staff etc, though).



Thats been debated on here loads of times, with folk demonstrating where the money allegedly went (all 847 permutations of it, one of which might even be right...) usually including seriously uprating various existing contracts. But I really hoped people would have cottoned-on to implications of why we broke the salary cap before: primarily, payments made to players by supposed unconnected third parties were found to be not structured well enough to escape being caught by the cap IIRC? At least thats how I read the Harris image rights business and the Tetleys Sponsorship issue or whatever it was... and my point is that I doubt such opportunities are now available, in this city and given our steady fall from grace and for other reasons.



But then folk would be saying why is the club treating the fans with contempt and not communicating with them? I really feel the club is between a rock and a hard place on this one, and only they will be in a position to assess the pros and cons of telling more (or less).

Quality post mate but don't expect a response from the Revolutionary Court just yet. They're too busy knitting.

While the club keeps telling us everything is OK even if it isn't all they are doing is putting increasing pressure upon on themselves by their apparent none action on everything.

I fear the only words they want to hear right now from the Head Coach are "..it is a far far better thing that I do now..."

Agreed!

We may have space left on the salary cap, but that doesn't mean we have the money to fund that gap.

Whilst I'd argue that the players look like they've lost faith in McNamara, and the results in recent weeks make his position look untenable, are there any serious, honest answers to the coaching situation out there?

There are plenty of answers but without the money to fund them, we have no solutions.

Disregarding the fact they may not want to come to Bradford..

That's not what Hood said.

and you plan to buy an new coach with what money?

If you'd asked the same question in 1994/1995 not many would have answered "Brian Smith". There may not be a genuine candidate but the gradual decline over the last 18 months means the question is at least worth asking by Hood.

Graham Murray? He's currently not working in League.

I know it's been a long time since he had the modicum of success at Leeds, but he would at least unite the players and get them playing together.

That said, maybe McNamara is just the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the lack of real funding at Bradford would prevent anyone from tunring it around at present?

The answer is down in London doing a pretty good job with even worse resources than the Bulls currently have!!!

Brian Mac will get the team playing to their full potential, something McNamara clearly cannot.

The current squad might only be able to just manage the play offs but at least they will have a good go with Brian in charge.

Its a load of bull (excuse the pun!) that we haven't got the money to aquire McDermott. he would be the best investment the club have made in ten years so surely that is worth it?

THE (STEVE)MAC IS DEAD... LONG LIVE THE (BRIAN)MAC!!!

Whilst I would have a lot of sympathy with Brian Mac as head coach should that position become vacant, one teeny weeny little question?

How exactly would he be able to join the Bulls when he is already contracted to Harlequins?

I'm sure we don't want another "inducement to breach contract" action and compo bill...do we?

I have nothing against McDermott but he's not the man for the job IMO. We need an experienced coach who can help address the problems we have.

I don't know whether McD could do the job or not, personally I think a successful London is more important. But I'm not sure experience is critical. Sure Graham Murray would be the dogs, but you just need to see the work Brown seems to be doing at Hudds, Morgan at HKR & Potter did at Cats to see if you are good enough you are experienced enough.

Does anyone know what length of contract your coach has. It could be very expensive to sack him. Not sure how contract law works, do you have to pay out the full term etc etc. In these hard times will the board of any company want a bill for say £ 100,000 just to get rid of a member of staff.

Er...I have been telling people about that for ages. Still hasn't sunk in with some yet



Its a hypothetical situation, and only the contracting parties and their advisers will know the contractual terms. But its not a case of contract law as such, more a case of what the terms of the contract and the applicable employment law are. I believe he has a contract till the end of this year, so the starting assumption must be that should the board go for the nuclear option then it would cost them something like the remaining amounts due till then. But it would all depend on the detailed terms of the contract and the circumstances of the departure.

Thats in simple terms, cos there are a lot of caveats relating to tax and especially to employment law. In some (non-sports) cases it can cost considerably more than the contractual entitlement to notice etc, if you are facing a claim for wrongful dismissal and/or if you want to impose some conditions on your (ex)-employee which your breach of contract would otherwise prevent. In non-sports situations you invariably get a "Compromise Agreement" in situations like this, where the ex-employee waives any further claims or rights in exchange for a substantial cheque. I've drawn a few of those up in my time.

But I'm not sure how it works in a sports situation, and whether there are any special rules or precedents which apply - or what the precedents are for being able to dismiss someone "fairly". The widely-publicised departure of Millward from Stains and then the Piedome didn't really cast too much light on the subject

But wait till Varky comes on and he'll probably be able to give you chapter and verse.

I refuse to even think about terminating the Mac's contract, as I don't want to hex anything

It's back!

There is a time for polls and it is after 10 games have been played. Anyway I have voted in this one and since changed my mind. I believe others have as well.