Did anyone listen to this on Monday when interviewed about Cummings getting the job. I thought i heard him say that the previous board failings were do with spending over the salary cap on players. I was driving at the time so could have misheard. If i didn't though this really was a stupid thing to say as Bulls haven't been punished for a salary cap breach. Would the RFL have to act on this even though it's a new company? Is there anyway we can get to listen to this interview again?

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00xrn69

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00xrn69

Probably a slip of the tongue from someone with no real understanding of how the game is run; I expect he meant spending over their own salary cap?

On a side note - I wish Franny Cummins well at the Bulls; it would be good to see another young British coach doing the business in SL.

This guy is an MP and should be thinking about what he's saying. Just listened to it again and he clearly says that they were not operating within the rules of the game. More than likely he's looked at the old books and knows this and thinks because they are a new company they can't be touched. To me they should still be punished if it's the case even if it happened 3 years ago. The NRL did it to Melbourne and looked back at previous seasons. I have nothing against Bulls i would have had the same opinion if it had been any other club.

yep deffo said it, wonder if rfl heard it. btw what about sympathy card he was playing regarding reduced monies 'we're a newco and need help' blah blah

It was being talked about as if the reduced money was some kind of punishment? They can't have it both ways, they have eaten into next years cash? That's the price you pay for staying in SL and not selling your best players.

The jurno's on backchat have just weed me off also

Dave Hadfield going on about it's wrong to give them reduced money for next year because it won't be a level playing field

According to League Express the new owners offered to agree to it in order to stay in SL (or words to that effect) plus no one was bleating when we first got in SL and had [uzero[/u not half the money for the first two years. Not saying the club was the best run under the previous regime, but you have to wonder had we had those 2 years missing SL money, whether we would have ended in as much strife as we did.

So what you are saying is that when Bradford cease to exist only then will you be really happy?

Yes, that's exactly what everyone is saying.

Very bitter lot aren't you?

Perhaps we are, much could be argued that could well justify any bitterness.
The point remains though if you've had next years money, you can't have it again, pointless bleating on about it though (you'll sound bitter, like us!!

).
Maybe now you will be forced to sell players to balance the books? Shame the money will remain in the club though and not go to the creditors IMO.
HTH