Of course. Point is they are obviously still employing players "above their means".

If Bradford Went and they expunged their record, the table would become

Wigan P17 P28
Warrington P17 P25
St Helens P17 P22
Catalan P16 P22
Huddersfield P17 P20
Hull KR P17 P19
Leeds P16 P18
Hull P16 P18
Wakefield P16 P12
Salford P16 P10
Castleford P16 P10
London P17 P6
Widnes P17 P6

Saints, Hull KR would be beneficiaries. Catalan, Leeds and Hull would drop back a place. Salford the biggest losers. Top 8 qualifiers pretty much all in with a 6 point gap.

But what would happen to Leeds. As the only club to play them three times, they would suffer worst and the "Magic Weekend" surely means that just wiping the record isn't possible? Hard to see how the RFL can get out of that one, if it happens.

So how does this sit with your continued insistence that the salary cap is holding the game back?

Are you suggesting that all clubs that are operating at a loss should be obliged to reduce their player expenditure so that they exist "within their means"?

Suggestion that if they go everyone will just simply get two points for every game v Bradford. Might be an idea then to just set all those results at 26-0 (default scoreline) to everyone and its all fair. Although Leeds would get a gift two points as I just alluded to.

As my earlier post only way to address would be to dismiss all of Bradford's results and award every club two points from each of the voided fixtures whether the game had already been played or not no matter what the score had been.

Give everyone 4 points and a +52 points diff. Or alternatively just give everyone 2 points and +26 from here on in who play Bradford.

And that is the fault of the cap how?

How does that address the additional Manchester fixture for Leeds?

That third Leeds fixture means that no matter what happens, Leeds are going to be advantaged or disadvantaged in some way. If all Bradford games are taken out they'll had played one game less than anyone else.

If the worse happens (which I don't expect anyway) I'd suggest, all home and away fixtures v Bradford are taken off the records completely, but the neutral fixture Leeds had at Manchester stays on the record. That way all teams are being treated the same in terms of home and away games and Leeds play the same number of games as everyone else.

Nothing is going to be perfect but I'd say that's about as fair as it could be.

Because they removed the "50% of income or £1.6m whichever is the lower" rule. All clubs can spend to the cap limit now regardless of if they can afford to. As I am sure you remember this change was introduced so the cap could be "live" following the outrage from the likes of Cas at Wigan's cap-breaking antics. So it's not the fault of the cap if a club is stupid enough to overspend but it is certainly true the cap has nothing to do with ensuring clubs do not go bust.

well, we've not managed to sort out any concensus as to how to procede. what hope is there that the RFL can?

what a complete & utter mess

The cap have never had anything to do with whether clubs go bust or not. Whenever something like the Bulls situation happens the usual suspects come out with the usual tosh trying to blame the cap in some way, instead of focusing on Directors of clubs mismanaging the finances.

Works in the same way as my proposal to give everybody the points (my way would allow Widnes to look a bit better if a casual viewer scanned the table).

I also think it will be a moot point anyway.

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/18609190[/url

"Super League bosses will allow Bradford Bulls to finish the season as a new company even if the club goes into liquidation in the coming weeks. "

good news

Makes a total nonsense of the new company though if the new company can inherit the old companies records, points, the only thing they lose is the debt.

Surely they are either the same old company, or a new company, they can't be both.

Wrong. The cap was ORIGINALLY introduced to prevent clubs overspending on players i.e. spending beyond their means. As DaveO has already highlighted.

Subsequently the cap was "twisted" to promote a "level playing field" (whatever that means) and the 50% rule quietly discarded.

This effectively re-created the ability for clubs to overspend.


WLA once again your ability to turn a perfectly sensible post into some kind of personal insult comes to the fore.

I suggest if you want to read "tosh", then it would be wise to look at your keyboard.

Of course. Don't you?

This was the original purpose of the CC.

Actually I don't.

However I was however under the obvious mis-understanding that you wanted the salary cap increasing when in fact you want it reducing. Sorry for my mis-understanding.

Yes it has and it still in fact does.

Form the operational rules in section E1:

1. Purpose, Scope and Application

1.1 The RFL has adopted these Salary Cap Regulations (the "Regulations"icon_wink.gif in order to regulate
the value of playing talent available to each Club participating in the league competition
managed by the RFL and currently known as the Super League. The overriding purpose of
the Regulations is to protect and promote the long-term health and viability of the game of
rugby league. Within that overriding purpose, the specific objectives are:

1.1.1 to protect the integrity of the Super League competition by ensuring that the
determinative factor in the sporting outcome is on-field sporting merit and not offfield financial considerations;

1.1.2 to ensure that the Super League competition remains competitive and therefore
attractive to spectators and commercial partners by preventing Clubs with greater
financial resources dominating the competition and by ensuring a balanced spread
of Players among the participating Clubs;

1.1.3 to protect and nurture a broad competitive playing structure by preventing Clubs
trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable
financial arrangements;



The cap has clearly failed in "prevent(ing) Bradford (from) trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable
financial arrangements;" so it looks like the usual suspects know their facts and you, err, don't.



It is of course ultimately the Bulls directors fault but the cap has certainly failed in one of its stated purposes.

Had the 50% rule still been in force it may well not have.

It was only discarded when the cap went "live". It was still in the rules when it first went to a flat rate cap. They removed a safeguard that may well have protected the Bradford directors from themselves.

Insolvency laws exist for a reason, and unfortunately in cases like this you're often damned if you do and damned if you don't.

For instance, if Bradford Bulls folded, that means everyone associated with the club is out of work, and the company's assets - if any - are sold to repay creditors. Once that's done, that's it. Finished. Gone. Think Woolworths.

If someone comes along to buy the 'business', it doesn't necessarily mean the debts are completely wiped. The purchase price of the business goes towards paying the creditors, less IP fees. Granted, creditors may not get much compared with what they're owed, but vitally, it means that employees jobs are saved.

If going bust saves, in this case, 50 or so jobs, then is going bust really such a bad thing?

Their players become free agents, which means they're just as entitled to re-sign for Bradford as they are another club.

In fact at this stage in the season, probably only a reformed Bradford would be able to take them on.

Its actually the daftest thing I've read during this saga. The idea seems to be that the existing club will be liquidated and that a Supporters Trust will instantly emerge and seemlessly take over the running of the club. In mid season. Its laughable.

Damn. You beat this usual suspect to it!

Yeh I only thought about this today, very true, quotas and salary caps would stop a few players going.

I guess the difference in business and sport is that in business you would start again from scratch. In sport if you are kept in the top flight by the organising body you are not exactly starting from scratch, you have been given a starting edge over competitors such as Halifax, Feathstone, Leigh, oldham etc...

Keeping your points gives you a starting advantage over Salford, London, Widnes.

Like I say they will be a new business but not a new sporting entity which seams some what shady.