I think he has so far. The job is just beyond him, there's only one man for this job and he goes by the name of Brian.

Brian Potter?

Would probably do better.

Yes, Brian Potter, no, really.

It's a pity Brian Clough isn't around any more

Indeed it would. Profoundly so. And the wage bill that goes through the books and the salary cap process probably is, since all those clubs are saying they are spending the salary cap. And yet those clubs clearly have far superior (and therefore more expensive, you would assume?) squads than us. I am sure that third party-paid image rights have a lot to do with it - indeed, we used that when we had players that could command good promotional values from third parties. Scully/Gillette was maybe the supreme recent example that we know of. It hardly seems right though in salary cap terms if a player can get a shedload for his image rights, and therefore play for a much lower salary than otherwise might be the case? Assuming of course that that speculative scenario actually happens... Even if the third party is truly unconnected with the club.

The other scenarios involve dishonourable (IMO) conduct, or worse, and so we can surely rule them out since surely no wealthy club owner would wish to be considered to be acting dishonourably?

None of the speculative scenarios I posed would be affected by the Rangers/HMRC issue. That was, as I understand it, primarily regarding the use of EBTs to save tax and therefore get more net pay to players for your salary cap bucks. Pearson at Hull just shelled out £1m to settle their EBT exposure. Bulls have stated we never used EBTS - although, like most other clubs, we ARE in the frame for [uclub-paid[/u image rights.

But the above scenarios all considered image rights and other payments made to, or on behalf of, players by "unconnected" third parties. No tax issues for the club, although there might just be issues elsewhere in some cases.

Don't think you need to go into conspiracy theories to show how some clubs can spend more money than others.

Prize money doesn't count on the cap so if you have a club that can expect to be successful and a player willing to take a risk on exactly how much prize money is in the pot then you have them paid x from from the cap and a percentage of any prize money each year.

Clubs with wealthy backers don't need the prize money for club costs as the backer covers these freeing up the prize money as player bonuses.

The cap may be the same for everyone but the actual funds available to pay players isn't and comes down to SL position and how far you get in the cup each season.

If you believe that prize money is the only differentiating factor, and can account for all the difference, that is up to you.

If you believe that clubs do not anyway pass on prize money to players, wealthy owner or not, that is up to you.

If you believe that, for example, Harris was paid every penny of his (substantial) package by the club, rather than by unconnected* third party Publico, that is up to you.

If you believe that other marquee players across the game do not receive image rights payments from third parties - or, if they DO, that it does not affect their playing package - that is up to you.

And that is just looking at the perfectly legal matter of third party-paid image rights.



* Until the RFL decided they WERE connected, hence the retrospective cap breach.

People are asking how can we have such a gulf in the quality of the two teams if we are spending the same salary cap. What I am saying is, that without stepping outside the rules and bringing "third party" payments or brown envelopes into it, the cap isn't equal anyway.

A team consistantly in the the top 4 and getting to semifinals in the cup has more bargaining power than us.

I didn't say the rest of it wasn't happening and yes funnily enough it is up to me what I think but thanks for reminding me!





The point is the amount of prize money isn't equal and a club with a backer can use all of it to pay players where other clubs may not be able to.



Is not what I said. I said its a reason, within the rules, for clubs to have different amounts available to pay players. As I've not been able to find out how much the prize money is and how steep the drop off is from 1st to last, I don't know how big an influence it would be. If anyone knows I'd be interested to hear it.

Adey, I have little doubt some top players are being paid a little extra than the amount in the salary cap. But I would think it a handful. I am struggling to think of any SL player I spot promoting anything, never mind the Scully level of Gillette promotion. If that is the case, are you suggesting it is possible they get paid it (image rights) for doing nothing - very dangerous for the player/club IMO? Even then, if one or two of the Tomkins types are getting this, what is it that attracts the other 13, or so, qulaity players to the particular club? The top 5 or 6 teams you could say have virtually every player is better than their Bulls (or London or whoever) counterparts in their respective positions. Some, such as Wire, virtually every player is/was an international. I do not believe every one of them is getting hidden payments. Ditto Leeds etc. So there must, IMO, be something in the playing for win bonuses/loyalty argument.

And you think it actually NEEDS a lot of players? Think again!

If - hypothetically - a club had on its books a couple of overseas marquee players who, say, could demand a net take-home income of £250k p.a (that is about AUD 370k), if a club paid them what it took to achieve that in pure salary (or cars or houses or whatever) those two players alone would use up £970k of the salary cap! £485k needed to get £250k net, from a back-of envelope calculation.

If, just say, both of those players' agents cut an image rights deal of £160k each, payable to their offshore personal service company, those payments could be made gross. Furtehrmore, since they were non-doms, they would not be liable to UK tax unless they received income fropm their companies AND it was remitted to the UK. The business paying for the image rights might even be totally unconnected with the club's owner, and not doing it as a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" job (you never know) and may even get good value for money out of it (I was told, for example, that Harris used to do promotional work for Publico two nights a week, but it was only what I was told).

Now, to get the players up to £250k net, the club NOW only has to pay a salary of £150k each.

Yes, that's right.

So the two mega-marquee players now cost only £300k in terms of the salary cap.

That frees up a massive £670k of salary cap!!!

Which sort of goes a long way towards paying all the OTHER players quite a lot more than could otherwise be the case. And you still get two marquee players.

Ok, the above is simplistic, and it assumes the player can keep the offshore funds free from Aus Tax when he gets home (Singapore Sling, anyone...?) but I hope it serves to demonstrate why this is potentially far, far from just an issue on the periphery.

Like I said, you wouldn't HAVE to do it with every player; just a handful who can legitimately claim to have an image worth decent money.

Disagree with the above, its just a fan being realistic.

Wigan and Catalans are settled teams who are on another level to where we currently are.

At HT yesterday, most fans were happy enough to clap the players off as their effort was noticeable in the 1st half.

As a fan, I do think the 2nd half was dyer and a very embarrassing at times. Most of Wigan's 2nd half tries were nothing special, and they cut through Platt and Kear like they weren't there. The way they cut through the middle was very concerning, not to mention Kearney being sidestepped as easily as he did.

Look at out Home fixtrues.... A 'new' team trying to build confidence, so that they can feel comfortable expressing themselves in games, is not going to get anything from Wigan, Catalans and Warrington.

Games like Castleford, Wakey, London, Widness, Salford, HKR is where we should look at how we are comparing. When we start forming partnerships and getting used to how each other plays, is when we will start to play better.

The 1st half was an okay performance, and the 2nd half was just littered with basic mistakes. I don't blame Potter for Tom B dropping the ball so close to the line. I don't blame MP for Sammut failing to find touch twice. I don't blame Potter for Crookes taking a man out in the air 3 times, letting Wigan get out from their try line. Players need to 'man up' and realise they are the ones that are costing us the games.

Sacking a coach as he's just lost consecutive home fixtures against Catalans and Wigan is very rash, IMO.

Thanks Adey, that makes obvious sense. But it must assume that all leading clubs are up to it. If it is legal I would assume they are, if it isn't I wouldn't.

Its legal. Scully's deal was legal. Harris' deal was legal.

And, provided it is a genuine image rights deal and not a favour from a pal of the chairman, its even OK within the salary cap - provided the salary cap auditor does not become aware of the scale of the image rights deal, and believe it to be really part of the playing contract.

But there are other ways you could achieve the result too, such as those I indicated. Or you can be Catalans where, as I understand it, the players pay far less tax anyway so they automatically get more bang for their salary cap bucks.

I think the problem with a club securing (sorry...silly me...the player's agent securing) a decent genuine image rights deal for a marquee player if that club has not been successful is that the player's image value is seriously compromised if he is no longer "successful". So its a virtuous circle for successful clubs, and a vicious circle when you fall from grace. Ring any bells with anyone...? And yes, the prize money DEFINITELY is a factor in successful clubs attracting successful players - but (as I hope I have shown) it is unlikely to be more than just part of the story.

Of course, if the image rights deal was to be cobbled together between the owner and a pal, or if it was some other sort of deal as I postulated, then a senior marquee player COULD nevertheless be attracted to a club that had not hitherto been seen as "successful", without taking up a disproportionate amount of salary cap. But, as I said earlier, no wealthy club owner would fall for the tempation, would they?

I agree that we possibly cant sack him, so bring someone in above him and demote him, this is what they would do in industry if they had someone that was as ineffective and as costly as Potter.

Why havent we got a Director of Rugby like other clubs, he will then either sink or swim.
Potter's light grey and the team play the same way.
The Bulls have.....................
No guts
No determination
No effort
No aggression

I'm on record as being in complete agreement with you on this one Adey - I seem to recall you putting me on your Christmas card list after a discussion about it on the VT last season, although you've probably since removed me following my frothing about Odsalgate.



I would be absolutely flabbergasted if the clubs with wealthy owners aren't using the same wheezes that people of that ilk have always used to stay several steps ahead of HMRC and by extension, light years ahead of whatever system the RFL uses to monitor the so-called 'salary cap.' It's as plain as day that some clubs are fielding squads of significantly higher monetary value than others whilst both would claim to be spending the cap; the difference is that the clubs with wealthy businesses backing them have all the connections, expertise and mechanisms already in place to get money into some of their players bank accounts by means other than a straightforward salary payment and furthermore, to maximise the proportion of the money that said players were able to keep hold of, by using tax-efficiency schemes.

It can sound a bit sour-grapey to moan about the clubs with wealthy sugar-daddies, or rather the lack of same at your own club, but I'm with you on this one; the current situation creates a two-tier SL in ways that goes far beyond the obvious and that in turn fuels the arrogant nonsense that some people spout about reducing to the league to 10 and casting adrift the clubs that can't compete.

Having said all that - would I like our very own Mr Burns, a la Shuddersfield? You bet I would.

in australia at the moment job hunting

On the issue of Potter I agree with Bullinenemyland that in order to turn things around we need a completely new broom. A new coach with fresh new ideas would be ideal. It happened in 1977 when we brought in Peter Fox and it happened again in 1995/6 with Smith and Elliott. Both had fresh ideas and could get great performances out of limited players and spot potential in the transfer market.

In 1996 we had the help of a pile of cash with the first sky deal. I'm not sure how we're fixed financially after the Odsal deal but if we can possibly do so we need to think about a big shake up.

I thought that's what Plopper was supposed to be? To be fair, I agree with you and when the big 'who should replace Macca' debate was going on I said as such.

However... I think we have to give Potter the rest of the season. The players who were brought in last were in the main part those who were available where as this season he's had more choice and options. These need to be given time to gel. Several of the Aussies seemed to be 'late' arrivals for various reasons and the pre-season in UK RL is a joke - the only team who seemed to have a proper test (rather than games against other SL teams or those from the lower division) was Wire. The more settled teams are going to hit the ground running compared to those who have once again had a big player turnover. Is Potter good enough? I'm not sure - Saints were hardly a 'bad' team when he took over and weren't Catalans essentially an Aussie team?

I don't think Nobby is the right man for the job. Good as his record was, it was done with a well established squad that he knew inside out.

Was thinking of not so much 96 reprised as 91... A second coming...

I think Mick shouldn't get an extension but from a slightly different perspective. In my opinion he should walk voluntarily because this club will have a toxic affect on his ability to find a decent coaching spot in the future.

I don't think the fact that we are utter gash is his fault. Its a gypsy curse or a cabal of feckless players or something else, but Mr Potter should get out now whilst he can still hope to have a career.

While I don't think Potter is covering himself in glory at the moment the salary cap era, and (IMO) dearth of quality players makes it a lot harder for a club or coach to rebuild a squad when it has been decimated by a few years of poor recruitment - which is the situation with the squad at Odsal at the moment.

I think it took Wigan, a club with more muscle and clout than Bradford at the moment, about three years to get their squad into serious challenging contention after having to repair the damage done by the Millward reign and the short term solutions they had to make to avoid relegation. It shows the long term implications that getting it badly wrong can have for a club.

As anyone thought mick potter doesn't want the job but if he walks away would lose out on payments etc, i may get a ripping for this but a very close source suggested this to me last year with some of potters actions in terms of selection and to me he doesn't seem to care less. Win lose or draw his response is always the same, he should of come out and slammed the bulls for such an horrendous score line at home and apologised to the supporters.
Complete overhaul needed at the bulls, i'd sooner see young enthusiastic players wanting to put effort in , couldn't lose by much more. Our conditioning is a joke , firstly the 30 % fitter comment, yeah losing the 2nd half 34-6 and regardless of "some injuries unavoidable " i honestly believe the players are not conditioned correctly, every single year there are 4 or 5 major long term injuries, no other club suffers like we do, yes maybe 1 or 2 long term but ours year on year is ridiculous . The bulls need to be very very careful, without some form of a push for the playoffs (which i think is miles away) this pledge thing wont stand for another year, they would have to drop them to £50 and even then would struggle for more than 5k imo. The fact hood has stated we are full capacity on the cap shows 1 of 2 things, either 1- he is lying or 2- we are paying way over the odds for some players.

Agree with Asim - its very difficult to build a decent team quickly now. The supply of quality Aussies/Kiwis has really dried up, which was the easiest quick fix available. Add the fact that clubs are now seeking to contract good young players for much longer, and the supply of good quality (or even highly promising) players available each year for transfer is very small.

I'm not sure I agree with this time to gel excuse. A decent coach will get the best out of his players & adapt his game plan to suit. Wakey (who don't even have the benefit of a decent coach) started with 13 new players & have done better than I expected, Maguire got the best out of a team comprised of a number of average players. Having said that McDermott's ideas obviously took time to work at Leeds.

In my experience the really good coaches can provide a visible improvement in very little time, often without having to spend much. Such men are thin on the ground though.

If you look at how Maguire transformed Wigan and Smith at Leeds then Warrington you see that they have what it takes. We need a dynamic new man in charge who can revolutionise things and get us out of the malaise we've been in for years.

Aside from the coaching there was someone on radio 4 last night saying that poor performances can be directly linked to the people in charge in a company as their philosophy has a knock on effect right down the chain. Get the right people at the top and things will improve at the bottom. I know we've had trouble attracting new people to the board but this is an area where an injection would have most beneficial effect. It needn't be a massively rich injection either, perhaps just some new ideas and a new approach.