He has already said in print that other Clubs were after Bateman but that was a while back, I doubt he's spoken to any hacks recently about it, and as its the Sun it a rehash of putting 2+ 2 and coming up with 5

As ever.

Wasn't there a statement, years ago blaming the fans for the money problems? Sometimes, less really is more. That is if you can believe some of the rubbish in the papers.

Too right I don't.
But I think I understand enough to see that somethings just don't add up. So both Giants and Wire have kept enough cap space spare just in case? I don't believe it.
And does Davy paying off debts/offering sweeteners not count as paying transfer fees? Even if not for cap purposes?

The Sun gets things wrong all the time, the reporter was on twitter apologising to Richie Mathers last year for getting the facts wrong about his transfer to Wakey. Another one that springs to mind is describing Kirk Yeaman as a winger

I think this is just lazy journalism and like a few others, I wish we could handle this kind of thing better

Yeah but he's saying he's nothing left to give, something I could identify with

It's not just that I have nothing left to give, though that is pretty much true. If I had it I wouldn't give it. We've already done the "do this and we have a sound business plan to carry us forward" thing. To give to people who would do the same thing again so soon would be foolish.

Clearly you don't.

In case of what? Few clubs will be a few pennies under the cap. Many 'full cap' clubs may be 10 - 20 K below it. They may also have low contract players on £10 -20K. You move a guy onto another club and a full cap club may be able to find £30K for this year. Look at Leeds Pitts out and lunt in - Lunt's contract will be far higher than Pitts so there will have been some cap space there. Very straight forward.

The infantile myths about KD paying off debts / offering sweetners

Playground gossip from morons.

We gave to address a clear and present danger to the future of the club. And without conditions, in my own case recognising that the BoD was prevented from issuing shares or anything else in exchange, because of the shareholdings of the kindergarten.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever I would do anything like that again without it being in exchange for shares (and in meaningful quantity), such exchange also recognising the money previously pledged.

The only way I could see that EVER being allowed to happen, by whoever happened to control the majority of the shares in issue at the time, would be if they were themselves unable to raise enough money to secure the club a viable future. Then they'd come running to the very last people they - any controlling party - would otherwise want to have a big say in running the show.

And, unless such action resulted in control being handed over to the supporters, bollox to it. Because if they needed share investment from the supporters to pay day to day costs because they could not cover the costs from anywhere else, it would just be another short-term palliative solution that failed to address the underlying problem - which is that competing at the top level in SL is a non-starter unless you have a rich owner.

If supporters had control, maybe a shedload of not-in the least bit-rich-at-all owners, aided by a few marginally-comfortable owners and the odd fanatic who won a few bob on the lottery, could together add up to the same as one very rich one. Maybe. If they could avoid falling out with each other for long enough and not all wanting to pick the team for the weekend. Maybe.

(I'm sure I saw something big and going "oink" fly past my window just then...?)

It doesn't happen often but we are in complete agreement.

Dont think any clubs looking at acquiring any of our players would particularly need to worry about salary cap. They would pay a fee for player and then immediately loan them back to us for remainder of season. The player wouldnt count on their new clubs salary cap until next season giving them time to move a player or two on and create the necessary cap space.
The potential fly in ointment in this scenario, which could help us retain players, would be amenable RFL were to registering said players. theoretically they could refuse to register said player at new club unless they had cap space to accomodate them. If they had to be registered at new club before they can be loaned then that could stop things dead. Other alternative is a club signs a player for next year onwards but pays a transfer fee now with players registration not transferring until end of current contract year.

Not the only one, by the looks of it.

Any staged increases in salary are averaged out for cap purposes. The only way the clubs would be able to offer bigger bucks in 2013 would be through a new contract - a situation that provides a very significant risk for all sides.

Lets all hope this is just a silly rumour and that bateman wont be going anywhere...cos lets be honest, if we can nuture this lad, he stays fit and he continues to play in the form he's currently playing in, my guess is that in a few years we'll get a million pounds (maybe more) for him!!!

hes got the potential to be good but £1m, id bet you we wouldnt get that for Sam Tomkins. If Wire offer you £100k he'll be gone.

You have give full details for checking and then get prior approval in writing from RFL before you can sign anyone. This is so they can check whether the financials you propose fit in with your salary cap.

Wrong

Maybe.

I remember when Wire put a 1m fee on Harris.

Yes I know that. Point I was making was, Would the RFL allow a club to sign a player who would take them over the salary cap if the club said they were going to immediately loan said player out to get them back under the cap for the remainder of the season?.

If the administrators come in and sell players won't the rfl do what they did with the crusaders players? No one from bulls will count on the salary cap? Or the foreign quote?

Is it my impatience but I simply cant understand why there seems such a long wait for the EGM. Hood's resigned to his fate and the longer any transition takes the more vulnerable we are to predators tapping up our assets. The good of the club has to come before the good of any individuals. Sort it out!

£100k.....have you taken your medication today???

Think its a legal requirement. They have to give all shareholders a certain amount of notice. Thats straightforward for the bigger shareholders but they also have to notify the 1000+ people who only hold a handful of shares dating back to reformation in the sixties. Think 28 days notice has been mentioned before. Im not sure but would assume that dates from when Caisley managed to get backing from more than 50% of shareholding i.e. not when he originally called for EGM in T&A article.

Sad though things may be at Bradford, I remember the Wire having to sell both Sculthorpe and Harris to help save the club from going under and very little sympathy coming from our neighbours or from across the Pennines. I find the irony in this situation almost amusing, but knowing how I felt then I can honestly sympathise with the Bradford fans.

One alternative is to go into administration and form a new club called Bradford Northern! an iconic name and unique in sporting clubs, got to be worth a thought.

That would never work. As the buying club would you run the risk of your new purchase picking up a career/long term injury after you've paid your transfer fee.

It sounds to me as if Bateman moving on is a given, this just looks like one of those headlines to start off the auction.