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.
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.