Board index ‹ RLFANS MAIN ‹ The Virtual Terrace ‹ Bradford's Demise

wrencat1873 wrote:

Bearing in mind that player wages are the largest single cost at most SL clubs, it would have been a good idea to stick with it !

Indeed it would have been better to have than not, but it still wouldn't have stopped Bradford going bust.

As for the Bulls fans comment that they'd be the only club without a sugar daddy - I don't think Cas get much director input, neither do Wigan or Leeds, and up until Pearson came to Hull they seemed to be running on what they brought in.

[Kosh]

wrencat1873 wrote:

Bearing in mind that player wages are the largest single cost at most SL clubs, it would have been a good idea to stick with it !

I agree 100% that the 50% rule should have been kept, but it appears that the player's wages at the Bulls wasn't even the major part of their wages bill, let alone total expenditure. That gives you some idea of the level of poor governance the RFL is supposed to try and get on top of.

The fundamental problem the RFL have is that they don't run SL and can only make suggestions/recommendations. It's down to the club chairmen to decide what the rules are. History shows that RL club chairmen and BODs struggle with fiscal policy all the time.

A prime example is the apparent consensus at a recent meeting of club chairmen that player wages have got out of hand. Well whose fault is that then, chaps?

Bulls Boy 2011 wrote:

.

....Bradford are the ONLY team to openly admit that they are struggling massivly financially.....and Salford are also in a bad place.

I think our Chairman has recently admitted that we're struggling financially (but not massively), have been for a few years and without him and other directors putting large amounts of money into the club each year it's likely we wouldn't be able to carry on in SL. What he's saying is that he's 68, won't be around forever and we need fresh investment which is really difficult in the current climate, especially where football completely dominates around us. At least he's recognised that it's a problem and is actively trying to do something about it. We've also just made our Chief Executive redundant, another prudent cost cutting measure that the club has taken. Also, Salford are operating at the lowest salary cap in SL on the basis of that's all we can afford (it's way less than the Bulls player wage bill and we're only one place below the Bulls in the table) - better that than having a massive wage bill that eventually puts us out of business eh? If John Wilkinson had taken the same course as Bradford have recently and some significant others before them and just overspent to regularly compete in the play-offs etc, we'd have gone the same way long ago. The bit that puzzles me is why some Bradford fans seemed to think that there was any chance that they could pretty much retain their team intact without either a massive cash injection or a massive downsizing in their playing staff wage bill oince the gap between income and expenditure had been revealed

I genuinely feel sorry for the Bulls fans (the one post that really resonated was the chap who was comforting his 8 year old son who was distraught, my own 8 year old would probably be the same if it ever happened to Salford). It's clear that your Board of Directors have let you all down very badly, including dragging money out of you when they should have known better but throwing rocks at other clubs that you perceive to be in a financial mess doesn't help because, as I've already said, it's a known issue at our club that the Chairman is doing his best to sort out.

Him wrote:

As for the Bulls fans comment that they'd be the only club without a sugar daddy - I don't think Cas get much director input, neither do Wigan or Leeds, and up until Pearson came to Hull they seemed to be running on what they brought in.

Equally, notwithstanding that he hasn't been around for very long, Andrew Glover at WTW isn't what could be described as a 'sugar daddy' - he remodelled the business based on the simple idea of only spending what he had coming in and cut his cloth accordingly; as a result, we haven't splurged a load of money we didn't have on players we couldn't afford and although it's resulted in a less than sparkling season on the field, there is a sense that we're building to a more stable financial base than we've had in decades.

bren2k wrote:

Equally, notwithstanding that he hasn't been around for very long, Andrew Glover at WTW isn't what could be described as a 'sugar daddy' - he remodelled the business based on the simple idea of only spending what he had coming in and cut his cloth accordingly; as a result, we haven't splurged a load of money we didn't have on players we couldn't afford and although it's resulted in a less than sparkling season on the field, there is a sense that we're building to a more stable financial base than we've had in decades.

And if every club did that, the whole game would be in a far better state !

However it only takes one club to decide to spend more and suddenly it becomes a race to over-spend. If only we could shackle teh likes of Wigan Warrington and Leeds then I am sure the overall expenditure would come down and teh games would still be exciting.

"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. "

How can they make that statement, when we dont even know if there will be a Newco, and the Newco will also need to fund losses for the next 12 months plus until the wage bill is cut.

Homer Simpson wrote:

"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. "

How can they make that statement, when we dont even know if there will be a Newco, and the Newco will also need to fund losses for the next 12 months plus until the wage bill is cut.

Anything to save this "iconic" club!

TrevLovesJanice wrote:

And if every club did that, the whole game would be in a far better state !

However it only takes one club to decide to spend more and suddenly it becomes a race to over-spend. If only we could shackle teh likes of Wigan Warrington and Leeds then I am sure the overall expenditure would come down and teh games would still be exciting.

Yeah! Leeds, Wigan & Warrington are the problem

TrevLovesJanice wrote:

And if every club did that, the whole game would be in a far better state !

However it only takes one club to decide to spend more and suddenly it becomes a race to over-spend. If only we could shackle teh likes of Wigan Warrington and Leeds then I am sure the overall expenditure would come down and teh games would still be exciting.

I don't see the need to 'shackle' clubs like Wigan and Warrington - I'd be interested to see how they manage their salary cap, but the majority of their business model is something to aspire to; we certainly don't want to create a race to the bottom.

And I'm still going to kick you up the ar5e.

[Code13]

I love how so many people can claim to know what the problem is without actually knowing what's going on