But the cap was supposed to give a level playing field, and protect clubs. As you rightly say thats not totally the fault of a cap the re Bulls... So what is the point of it? Same clubs in the same positions basically, Warrington have replaced Bulls in top four, and surprise surprise, money is the main reason. If its a level playing field, you can't just bail out failed businesses, if you expect clubs to be run on business lines. All this talk of them finishing in the ntop eight without the deductions is a smokescreen... If they were run properly, they would not have a points deduction. Time to look at the cap, the number of clubs in SL, and the way clubs are licenced methinks.

Sorry, double post...

<snip>



If they have bought the old company don't the new owners get its debts as well?

I mean if it hasn't been wound up how can the new owners walk away from the debt?

If they can do this legally its just as bad as winding one company up and starting another the day after debt free.

The new owners will have bought the assets off the administrator for a consideration i.e £150k and will now take on the day to day running of the business the old company will remain in administration and the administrtor will work on behalf of the creditors of the Old co to secure the best deal possible for the creditors who have lost out.

It would be commercial suicide if Khan and co take on the old company, unless the debts have been cleared by AN Other beforehand

Bradford out, bye-week for the wcc and a top 5 play-off next year please

Straight forward for me. If a club cannot pay its way it should be dropped down a division. Not sure its in the rules though, they have been penalised for going into administration, should that not be the end of it.

More important for me are what lessons are to be learned.
Wigan as a club should be planning for the future to avoid this ever hapening to us.
What happens if Lenagan walks away?
A supporters trust should be set up with funds in that trust not to be used except if we are threatened with liquidation.
£20 on the cost of every season ticket would raise circa £200k per annum.
£1 million over five years.
If it means helping to protect our club for future generations then i would support a scheme along these lines.

Leneghan is making sure that the club is on a sound footing financially by "organically growing" the company rather than bank rolling it and spending a lot of his own money.

I think occassionally he may have had to fund the odd transfer or other purchase but not to extent Whealan did.

The Bulls situation to me is complex and a web of lies and deciet, The former directors are blaming the previous board, the previous board are blaming the RBS, the RFL stepped in to buy the ground its all a complete hash and quite frankly needs a clean slate with new blood.

We have to give Khan & Co the benefit of the doubt as they have put there money where there mouth is and should be given the opportunity to deliver on there promises.

If we are not careful winding the bulls up IMO is a recipe for meltdown of the game as we at least need to retain some of the traditional heartland clubs and get that stabilised before we even consider expanding the game any further, we also have to consider the wider implications for the local economy as suppliers to the bulls under the new regime stand more chance to get some of the cash they may have lost back from the new business

Remember they are still not 100% home and dry as the RFL have to rubber stamp the whole thing 1st

So it is as I thought then. The old Bulls are in administration and will sooner or later be wound up with creditors not paid and the new OK Bulls are a completely new team and company who happen to be playing at the old Bulls ground.

If the OK bulls get a place in SL it will look like you can wrack up the debt, put a club into administration and set up another up to carry on as if nothing has happened. Also given the fact the OK Bulls are different team and company they don't have any claim to a SL place.

I dont think its quite so simple Dave, simply dumping debt and starting up again the very next day is something the law in the country stamped on many years ago, unless you have a very good administrtor in tow of course, however the public nature of this situ would have made it impossible to do this underhandedly.

Like i have said previously this whole thing isnt the doing of the new owners they need IMO to be given the opportunity to deliver on there promises, if theydont then they deserve all they get not the Club itself, the club must live on and not disappear.

Im of the opinion that the Bulls will not be the only casualty in the near future but we have to protect the heartland as a lot of communities are built on there rugby teams. get this stabilised then we can expand not exapand and contract the heartland

I know which is why I said it will[i looks like[/i you can do that. The impression given is the sport is not good for its debts and ignores its responsibilities to its creditors.

If on the other hand the new club is made to start at the bottom at least that sends the right message that the sport won't tolerate this. It also says you can not play fast and loose with a clubs finances if you are a current owner gambling that if it goes belly up for you the team will carry on as before under new owners with just 6 points docked.



I don't see how replacing Bradford with say Halifax goes against any of that.

The cap has nothing to do with our current situation. For what it's worth I would want Wigan to stay, rightly or wrongly the top league without certain clubs (including Wigan) just wouldn't feel right.

It was and the majority of the clubs voted for us to stay in superleague.

Not sure what's funny?

Stop it. You're killing me!

Forgetting all the emotion behind all of this what teams out of The championship would actually add anything to superleague ?

That is a very, very good question and one which you would think the RL authorities would be addressing their minds to as a priority.

For me, there is only one RL club outside SL whose inclusion could bring significant benefits to the competition. The RL authorities should be doing absolutely everything they can to get a viable Toulouse side into the competition. Catalans have established themselves as a major club in RL, Toulouse have the potential to be bigger than Wigan and Leeds.

I think now we aree getting round to the crux of why the RFL / Clubs wanted to save the Bulls and keep them in the SL.

Otheriwse you would have say Halifax thrust into SL, needing to upgrade the quality of there playing staff and potentially be back to square one, dropping crowds,dropping income, no real competition and potentially taking the club under as they strive to compete in SL.

Unless there are people out there with money to initially bank roll the club similar to David Hughes at the Broncos then we have a real stalemate as to where the game goes.

One poster on here asks about the salary cap, one thing is for sure, it is driving ambitious investors away from the game as they cannot see any return for there money, what you have is a select few clubs with directors/owners willing to invest in the right staff to drive off field activities and who are willing to wait for there money, The game needs to open up more and be willing to take more risks to attarct investment and sponsors like pre salary cap when we didnt have as many clubs in such difficulty as we have now and a flourishing international game attracting 50,000 crowds to Old Trafford and Wembley stadium.

I dont know inns and outs of the bulls situation and surely they have been playing under the cap? No real top talent who would be busting the bank?

Anyway if you take a step back and look at it from a neutral perspective then it would be unfair if they were to remain in SL at the expense of other teams, who have worked hard within the rules.

Tho this situation does throw up some good questions Does the sc work is the licensing helping or hindering our game

I think the sc has worked tho nowadays not fit for purpose no one side is dominant due to purely financial reasons however some sides are now hindered by it. I would look to modernising the rules so its more income based and have no ceiling if a club can generate say 100m then should be allowed to spend say 10m on players n wages. I know the numbers are hi but i feel this would force clubs to run more like a business where succes on and off the pitch would be rewarded accordingly.

In terms of the Cap it was supposed to level out the playing field, the difficulty has been that clubs have not been able to spend up to the cap. If all clubs spent to the cap, then the spread of players would be more even.

I am not advocating that clubs over spend, but I think the assumption was that after a few years all clubs would head to the cap and so even out the players.

In terms of protecting clubs from themselves, it could be done. The question is whether is should be done?

A simple condition of the licence could be that over a 3 year period clubs must breakeven. Any club who does not would lose the licence no questions.

However that requires the RFL to be hardline and it would stop clubs developing stadia, Saints have incurred huge losses to build a new stadium. Would the RFL have the strength of will to follow through? Would clubs who make losses take the RFL to court to try and justify a new licence? Clubs would have to cut costs and would fans accept a drop in playing standards to secure the finances of their club, whilst other clubs with big money men donating huge cash injections to their teams storm ahead?

Like I say a breakeven cap could be imposed, the question is should it be, or should it simply be survival of the fittest with no regulation.

how about introducing something like the NFL draft system, where the bottom SL club gets first pick of any exploding talent & GF winners get to mop up the also-rans. If (say) a third of squad numbers were allocated this way it'd certainly level things at the start of a season & maybe even London would get to win a few.

1 major problem who will develop the talent for the draft as if you are losing the best young players and pay thousands into their development why should teams bother with a youth and junior system. After all we would have lost Sam Tomkins to say Crusaders 3 or 4 years ago. Is that fair.

The NFL draft works as no team in the NFL are directly connected in developing any of the players who enter the draft. Whilst teams in SL have to develop players as we do not have any other choice.

No it isn't, and I agree that there would have to be a radical shake-up in core funding, but we can winge on about the cap or P&R 'til the cows come home, nowt's ever going to really stop there being such basic inequalities between teams until proper due-diligence and some sort of over-arching financial management (ie oversight) is put in place (whether by the RFL or the chairmen & owners collectively growing a pair).

(yes I know, too many syllables)

Yups, and in the mean time the cap drags us all down to the aspirations of the lower clubs.