Board index ‹ RLFANS MAIN ‹ The Virtual Terrace ‹ Living beyond our means

Hasn't a precedent already been set in such a situation with Wakefield though? If nobody appealed then that's basically an agreement that it is acceptable.

No. Wakefield were different. They submitted an application and were vetted and were accepted and issued a licence. That might have not stood if Crusaders did not withdraw their licence application but Wakefiled did actually apply for a licence.

keighley1 wrote:

.. If other clubs had to submit applications and be graded and checked to be in SL, why would a newco Bradford not have to do the same. ..

Because the decisions are not left to disgruntled Keighley fans carrying Titanic-sized chips on their shoulders?

justthebasicfax wrote:

Those Barmy bar stewards at Red Hall may have fooled some, but not all.

Bradford, and other clubs have been stupid, however...
The RFL don't get out of this that easy, licensing, grading, auditing, buying leases or freeholds, propping up franchises, Sponsorship deals that beggar belief, destroying GB and Ashes series, removing the competitive essence of sport.

They have had a play, now leave the dam sport alone.

PopTart wrote:

and we'd have less games with less annual income.....

Initially yes, but wouldn't the product be better with some of the lower end teams gone. The quality players will be more evenly distibuted, this will improve the product as a spectacle, with more high intensity matches we may be able to win the World Cup or 4 nations. More exposure more money and the cycle continues. Once the national team wins something the exposure comes in you only need to look at RU after 2003 and cricket after 2005 to see this.

JB Down Under wrote:

Reduce salary cap to 1.2 million. Would solve the financial problems for most clubs overnight.

20 players avg 60k each, sorted.

Except that loads of the better players would go to Union or Australia, and while noble fans such as yourself would still go to watch League, those fair-weather fans like me and many others would be less interested in low level rugby and go do something else at the weekend. "Good riddance" I hear you say, "we don't need your sort".

...but sponsors would then be even *less* interested, gates would drop too, TV would start switch off and so would income. In two seasons, you'd be on here again asking that we reduce the cap to £500k, as the sport races to amateurism.

It's the same 'myth of cuts' that the Tories are taking us to the doldrums with.

RLBandit wrote:

Except that loads of the better players would go to Union or Australia, and while noble fans such as yourself would still go to watch League, those fair-weather fans like me and many others would be less interested in low level rugby and go do something else at the weekend. "Good riddance" I hear you say, "we don't need your sort".

...but sponsors would then be even *less* interested, gates would drop too, TV would start switch off and so would income. In two seasons, you'd be on here again asking that we reduce the cap to £500k, as the sport races to amateurism.

It's the same 'myth of cuts' that the Tories are taking us to the doldrums with.

Agreed.

Hopie wrote:

A 14 team league where the teams at the top rest their better players against the teams at the bottom because league games don't really matter?

This.

RLBandit wrote:

Except that loads of the better players would go to Union or Australia, and while noble fans such as yourself would still go to watch League, those fair-weather fans like me and many others would be less interested in low level rugby and go do something else at the weekend. "Good riddance" I hear you say, "we don't need your sort".

...but sponsors would then be even *less* interested, gates would drop too, TV would start switch off and so would income. In two seasons, you'd be on here again asking that we reduce the cap to £500k, as the sport races to amateurism.

It's the same 'myth of cuts' that the Tories are taking us to the doldrums with.

Dont agree. Sky needs league to fill a hole. Dont forget the hard times people are having, if sky dropped league I would drop my sky package. They value league as it has replaced monday night football.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Because the decisions are not left to disgruntled Keighley fans carrying Titanic-sized chips on their shoulders?

So all pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others or alternatively " Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of big clubs".

Well, in my opinion, there will be more than me disgruntled of you are allowed back in SL in contravention of all rules and regulations. Other clubs looking to be in the top level will say " Why should we have to comply with the rules when Bradford don't" and when SL reply, " Because we say so" then law suits might start flying.

Were Rangers given the boot from the SPL by disgruntled Partick fans. I don't think so. It was a bit higher than that.

Then there is the Crusaders precedent and the London welsh precedent. Rules is rules but not for the Bulls. You had better hope you are right.