[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:10 pm  

DaveO wrote:

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") 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.

Dave you obviously didn't read what I said properly. I said:

The cap has never had anything to do with whether clubs go bust or not.

Which bit of that don't you and the usual suspects understand?

Copy and pasting purpose, aims etc didn't address my original point that the cap doesn't cause clubs to live beyond their means, bad management does.

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:13 pm  

Am I the only one that wants the Bulls to go into liquidation? nothing against the club or its fans just out of curiosity to actually see what happens.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:28 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

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.

Which bit of:

The cap has never had anything to do with whether clubs go bust or not.

is so difficult to understand? The cap is no different to having a budget to live within your means, but if you spend beyond your budget it not the budget's fault is it? Bad management is to blame.

By the way if you think saying people were talking tosh is a personal insult you know neither the definition of "personal" nor "insult". Welcome back from your hibernation by the way, has it been nearly three months since a thread mentioned the cap?

[DaveO]

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:17 pm  

Wigan28/Leeds18 Andy wrote:

Dave you obviously didn't read what I said properly. I said:

Which bit of that don't you and the usual suspects understand?

Copy and pasting purpose, aims etc didn't address my original point that the cap doesn't cause clubs to live beyond their means, bad management does.

What you actually said was:

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

Now given a stated aim of the cap is to "prevent(ing) Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements;" it is clearly supposed to have a lot to do with whether clubs go bust or not. It is supposed to help prevent it. As it was supposed to do when there was a 50% of turnover element. It has failed in this stated aim.

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

which for some reason you chose to ignore.

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:51 pm  

DaveO wrote:

What you actually said was:

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

Now given a stated aim of the cap is to "prevent(ing) Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements;" it is clearly supposed to have a lot to do with whether clubs go bust or not. It is supposed to help prevent it. As it was supposed to do when there was a 50% of turnover element. It has failed in this stated aim.

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

which for some reason you chose to ignore.

Not being funny WLA (and frankly without people who disagree, these forums would be dull), but which bit of DaveO's post above don't you understand?

If the 50% rule was kept in place it would help ensure clubs don't overspend. It wouldn't prevent it, of course, but it certainly would help.

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:03 pm  

Wigan28/Leeds18 Andy wrote:

It'll be a "pre-pack" administration, with the former Chairman Caisley waiting in the wings to get it on the cheap without the debts. Points deduction for going into administration and the Newco allowed to carry on as Bradford. In other words a hatchet job on the poor sods who gave them £500k. It was always going to end like this.

I feel more for the poor sods who the Bulls owed money to and who on good faith expected to be paid duly,some poor family's with small business' will have been hit very hard
The folk who collectively donated the £500.000 to the fighting fund were being nothing more than oblivious to these sort of procedures

I have heard Fielden bleating about his donations to the cause and how it was money down the drain,oh really stuart you don't say, what did you think would happen to your money then?

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:05 pm  

the 50% rule is all well and good as long as any other expenditure by the club apart from players salaries does not exceed 50% of turnover as well.

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:11 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

If the 50% rule was kept in place it would help ensure clubs don't overspend. It wouldn't prevent it, of course, but it certainly would help.

Bradford spent less than 50% of their turnover on the salary cap.

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:20 pm  

Paul Youane wrote:

Bradford spent less than 50% of their turnover on the salary cap.

Really? What did they spend the money on?

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: If Bulls are liquidated...... : Wed Jun 27, 2012 7:33 pm  

DaveO wrote:

What you actually said was:

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

Which is what I paraphrased earlier - there was no need to repeat it again, but thanks anyway.

DaveO wrote:

Now given a stated aim of the cap is to "prevent(ing) Clubs trading beyond their means and/or entering into damaging and unsustainable financial arrangements;" it is clearly supposed to have a lot to do with whether clubs go bust or not. It is supposed to help prevent it. As it was supposed to do when there was a 50% of turnover element. It has failed in this stated aim.

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

which for some reason you chose to ignore.

I didn't choose to ignore the bit about the Bulls Directors fault because it's what I said originally. For the second time it doesn't matter what the stated aim of the cap was, what I original said which you've seemed to disagree with again for some reason is that the cap has never had anything to do with a club going bust. Bad management is the only reason the Bulls are in the position they find themselves in. No matter what the stated aim of the cap on an RFL document says it has absolutely nothing to do with the Bulls spending much more than their income.