Board index ‹ Super League ‹ Warrington Wolves ‹ Bradford

Question ? If Bradford do go into administration are all players contracts cancelled which makes them all basically free agents ?

Catpiss' mention of fans forum reminds me that I guess a good thing with the demise of Bradford is not having to worry how we will fit their ten thousand strong away following into the new stadium.

ninearches wrote:

Well they decided at the start of Superleague that there were certain flagship teams they wanted, hoping to create franchises like they have in America.IIRC the teams were Wigan ,Saints, Bradford, Leeds,Hull ,Gateshead, Hudds/Sheff. ,Cheshire, Cumbria.Due to the parochial nature of the sport & the compact area it is played in the wheels soon came off the idea.

Thanks 9A. Was it Sky, or the RL through Sky, or just the RL who were trying to conjur up a different model? I'm not too sure, we (the sport) are still in a mess when it comes to expansion, mergers, qualification criteria for SL entry, magic weekend extra game, play off format still Sky's fault?

In Bradford's case, whoever was deciding where the licences were going, they were the first club to really grasp the marketing possibilities of SL and were successful and I genuinely feel sorry for their speccies about the apparent mismangement of late.

I don't know what the answer is, probably that ultimately money talks, but, glad we weren't forced to support Cheshire. We should all remember how lucky we are at present and enjoy it 100% whilst it lasts.

PADDERS wrote:

Question ? If Bradford do go into administration are all players contracts cancelled which makes them all basically free agents ?

I think the job of an administrator is to see how the club can continue as a 'going concern'. So the players will still be retained on their contracts and will be viewed as an asset, as they have signed a legal agreement with the club. As such they could presumably be sold, providing they can reach a personal agreement with their new club.

Just IMO though

Colin_Fishwick wrote:

The whole game is bankrupt if you ask me.

The administrators have made a right mess of this sport, the licensing system not to mention expansionism is deeply flawed and should be binned immediately.

Propping up weak clubs like London, bradford and Wakey is doing the game harm. If clubs arent run correctly (which shouldnt be allowed to happen) then they should be allowed to fall when they fail and be replaced by better run clubs.

How many times have the likes of Bradford, London, wakey and Crusaders been rescued or given massive help by the RFL on the back of poor management/backing.

At last, some common sense on the subject, though the OP is only interested in Bateman coming to Warrington, and not Bradford's financial problems.

SL is deeply flawed, and quality-wise is getting worse. The franchise system being the main culprit in this. We are not too far off the premiership, where 2 teams only have a realistic chance of winning, 2 or 3 teams may possibly do something, whilst the rest are there to make up the numbers. That will soon happen to SL, unless it already has.

The sooner we revert to P+R the better, the current format means the last quarter of the regular season is practically pointless for most teams. Also go back to making winning the league the most important trophy of the season, and not the Sky-hyped play-offs, keep that as a different competion all together, as it used to be.

Bradford are just the tip of the iceberg, just like Rangers in footie. When 1 goes, a few will follow.

Sky seemed to have this notion that because we were going to be such a big part of their sports coverage that we should all be pleased to conform to the idea of a franchise system & accept such stupid names as Bulls, Wolves & Rhinos because of all the wealth that would be coming to rugby league due to its fantastic coverage by Sky.

I think it was the last weekend before the first Monday fixture, Sky were advertising what they would be covering at weekends ...Australian Super Rugby ,did anyone else see it? They do seem to be cosying up nicely to the RFU lately . Let's hope they keep the faith with Superleague .

Live Wired wrote:

At last, some common sense on the subject, though the OP is only interested in Bateman coming to Warrington, and not Bradford's financial problems.

SL is deeply flawed, and quality-wise is getting worse. The franchise system being the main culprit in this. We are not too far off the premiership, where 2 teams only have a realistic chance of winning, 2 or 3 teams may possibly do something, whilst the rest are there to make up the numbers. That will soon happen to SL, unless it already has.

The sooner we revert to P+R the better, the current format means the last quarter of the regular season is practically pointless for most teams. Also go back to making winning the league the most important trophy of the season, and not the Sky-hyped play-offs, keep that as a different competion all together, as it used to be.

Bradford are just the tip of the iceberg, just like Rangers in footie. When 1 goes, a few will follow.

If my understanding is correct, the point of the salary cap is to ensure that wealthy clubs can not buy up all the best players and win all the silverware. The franchise system effectively bankrolls each club in SL and provides the cash, which together with the clubs specie and merchandising revenue, allows them to contract players and buy new ones. I think in an ideal world the RL would like every club to have exactly the same amount of cash such that the playing talent was spread evenly across all the clubs. I think they believe that this will mean very close matches during each round which in turn will encourage greater attendance. So whether you agree with franchising or not, the RL are trying to ensure one or two clubs do not dominate, which is your main complaint.

The play-offs are clearly all about keeping the interest in the cup going for the whole year, hence keeping up attendance and the money rolling in. In the old system we could have one team that ran away with the league after 2/3 of the games have been played, hence matches would be pointless. As it stands, a team finishing 8th can still win the competition, so their supporters have an interest in going to matches until they get knocked out in the play-offs. This 'business model' operates in Yawnion and of course the NRL. It is well used presumably because it brings in the dosh. I suspect that the RL will never go back to making the league leaders trophy a significant achievement because it distracts from the Grand Final. It will always be referred to as a minor title. They want everything focussed on the grand final and as many clubs involved in the hunt until the very last bit of the season.

Now, it may sound as if I agree with all this. However I don't like the play-offs. I think that a club finishing 5th in the league and winning the GF is a total farce and has damaged the sport with a certain section of the supporters. In trying to maximise the amount of money they make during the year, they have lost some credibility in the value of the trophy. I don't think it has just affected the supporters either, I think the coaches have also woken up to the fact that they need to employ different tactics. So this touches on the discussion we had before about just making sure you finish top 4 or 2 with a healthy fresh squad rather than trying to win the league. I am sure that I can see bigger squads being built via the U20's in order to be able to rotate players. It is certainly the case for Wire and Wigan at any rate, and they are the top two in the league. The wheels have come off for Leeds, but if you look at the Valvoline cup league you will see their U20's are in a very strong position also. I think the emphasis in the 'arms race' is switching from buying in the best talent to nurturing the best young talent in order to get an advantage over the opposition.

this thread is spot on

Rugby league is finished,never has the product been watched by so few from the terraces or tv and never has the product been played so badly by so many.

I long for the days of fear of relegation and potential extinction of our clubs.

the game was miles better in the 80s as was soccer darts snooker and music and fashion.

we should continually look to the past if we want to progress.

we should not waiver in our continual bitching about sky tv, london and the playoffs.

we need to keep up this image of being moaning never content insanely jealous bitter and backward northerners up our we are in danger of making our sport look attractive.

Winslade's Offload wrote:

If my understanding is correct, the point of the salary cap is to ensure that wealthy clubs can not buy up all the best players and win all the silverware. The franchise system effectively bankrolls each club in SL and provides the cash, which together with the clubs specie and merchandising revenue, allows them to contract players and buy new ones. I think in an ideal world the RL would like every club to have exactly the same amount of cash such that the playing talent was spread evenly across all the clubs. I think they believe that this will mean very close matches during each round which in turn will encourage greater attendance. So whether you agree with franchising or not, the RL are trying to ensure one or two clubs do not dominate, which is your main complaint.

It was originally introduced to stop clubs over spending.