: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:27 pm  

I didn't get a season ticket this year, because I had a job that meant working every Sunday, but fortunately I've moved on now, so I'll definately get one next year unconditionally.

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:45 pm  

mat wrote:

plus reducing amount of money club has coming in by not going actively contributes to the decline.

Are we allowed to ask where our money went in the previous 2 seasons then? The stock answer is that 2 years ago it all supposedly went to Iestyn. I can hear the people crying now "Wait 'til Iestyn goes we'll have loads of salary cap for good players". It seems we spend the cap but don't get the players.

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:56 pm  

Don't forget not only did Mr Harris go but so did Vagana, Hape, Tupou, Solomona is going, Newton, Morrison, Burgess, Cook and Tadulala. We'll have loads of Salary Cap Money to buy more tahn a few average players, roll on next season.......I may have forgotten a few.....

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:20 pm  

Yes I'm renewing next year because first and foremost I enjoy going to watch live sport and I'm a Bradford fan. I may not like whats happening to the club but it's still an affordable and enjoyable way of going to matches.

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:37 pm  

It's a no brainer for me. Good times or bad, I'll be a regular at Odsal.

On the plus side, lower crowd = quieter bar!

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:08 pm  

Yes.

Because I love watching rugby league and Bradford is my team.

We've just had the most unprescedented period of success in our history, we we're always going to have a down time, like we've had before, and like we will have again after our next success. It wont stop me attending as I don't attend just to see us win, or indeed just our team, I like to watch a hopefully entertaining match between two rugby league teams and I still cannot think of anywhere else I'd prefer to do that than at Odsal.

Each to their own mind and I understand fully some people spending their hard earned elsewhere if they choose, its not compulsory attendance is it, and it has been tough watching a 3 year slide and only being rewarded with two home wins so far this season.

...plus if its quieter next year I might get my pre super league leaning post back

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:11 pm  

i wont be,im going to play cricket instead,il just go to the odd game that i can make on a free weekend!i used to look forward to going to watch the bulls,but the past few years have been painful and until hood and co leave the club,i shall not be renewing my season ticket!

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:22 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

It seems we spend the cap but don't get the players.

I've tried to explain on numerous occasions ways that one club may be able to get more bang for their bucks than another, regardless of the supposedly "fixed" salary cap.

But seems folk just ignore it

Just one example since you raised the question of Iestyn - think on this bit of...speculation, on my part:

When we were found in breach of the salary cap, what was a major cause that was fairly widely (if unofficially) explained at the time? Iestyn's image rights were being paid by an independent third party (and so should not have counted on the cap) - but the club screwed up and took an advert in a matchday programme from that third party, which made that third party "connected". And thereby brought those payments into the cap.

See what I just said? Money to Iestyn paid by an independent third party. That will likely mean he earned - from his rugby - rather more than the club was paying him. Now, when he left, do people think that other players were able to do likewise, and on such a scale? And if not (and I'm in that camp) then you have an immediate reduction in the overall total that your players earn from the game, and therefore an immediate reduction in overall ability and quality. In fact, from the minute those earnings fell within the cap and we will presumably have had to economise elsewhere to accommodate the contractual commitment? This is all deduction and speculation, but anyone care to find the holes in my logic?

I suspect there may still be some examples of third-party image rights - and, apropos to nothing in particular I recall our most marketable player was presented in the T&A as the new face of a luxury car dealership (not an existing sponsor as far as I know) the day before it was announced he had signed a new contract - make of that what you will. But on the same scale? very much doubt it.

And on nothing like the scale that the likes of Scully will surely have received for image rights from Gillette? Or Iestyn from Tissot when at Leeds? And who knows what others maybe at Wire and Stains?

And thats before we get into the "more bang for your bucks" with the tax-free payments currently being investigated by HMRC and the RFL, where I understand we are not significantly in the frame.

Maybe the reason folk ignore these issues is because they might, just might, be an inconvenient truth?

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:37 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

I've tried to explain on numerous occasions ways that one club may be able to get more bang for their bucks than another, regardless of the supposedly "fixed" salary cap.

But seems folk just ignore it

Just one example since you raised the question of Iestyn - think on this bit of...speculation, on my part:

When we were found in breach of the salary cap, what was a major cause that was fairly widely (if unofficially) explained at the time? Iestyn's image rights were being paid by an independent third party (and so should not have counted on the cap) - but the club screwed up and took an advert in a matchday programme from that third party, which made that third party "connected". And thereby brought those payments into the cap.

See what I just said? Money to Iestyn paid by an independent third party. That will likely mean he earned - from his rugby - rather more than the club was paying him. Now, when he left, do people think that other players were able to do likewise, and on such a scale? And if not (and I'm in that camp) then you have an immediate reduction in the overall total that your players earn from the game, and therefore an immediate reduction in overall ability and quality. In fact, from the minute those earnings fell within the cap and we will presumably have had to economise elsewhere to accommodate the contractual commitment? This is all deduction and speculation, but anyone care to find the holes in my logic?

I suspect there may still be some examples of third-party image rights - and, apropos to nothing in particular I recall our most marketable player was presented in the T&A as the new face of a luxury car dealership (not an existing sponsor as far as I know) the day before it was announced he had signed a new contract - make of that what you will. But on the same scale? very much doubt it.

And on nothing like the scale that the likes of Scully will surely have received for image rights from Gillette? Or Iestyn from Tissot when at Leeds? And who knows what others maybe at Wire and Stains?

And thats before we get into the "more bang for your bucks" with the tax-free payments currently being investigated by HMRC and the RFL, where I understand we are not significantly in the frame.

Maybe the reason folk ignore these issues is because they might, just might, be an inconvenient truth?

Have Castleford, Wakefield, Harlequins, Hull KR , Huddersfield gotten more out the salary cap than us. I don't believe any of these are stretching the salary cap to such an extent that it would make them better than us. I just think that have used what funds they have available so much better than us.

: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:55 pm  

redeverready wrote:

Have Castleford, Wakefield, Harlequins, Hull KR , Huddersfield gotten more out the salary cap than us. I don't believe any of these are stretching the salary cap to such an extent that it would make them better than us. I just think that have used what funds they have available so much better than us.

Irrefutable argument - although I think HKR have owners with money IIRC? And of course then we have Hull FC with the counter argument?

But I was responding to the oft-raised suggestion that we are still spending as much as we were yet the quality of the squad is worse (and of course its all the coach's fault...) - and you know a bit more on this subject anyway.

What seems clear though - and, as I said, your point is irrefutable - is that we have a small group of coaches who seem able to get their teams to punch above their weight. Norris always has (forget Hull FC...remember there is a Hetherington infestation there) and the others have certainly demonstrated they can. Ones who seem to have struggled include Jimmy, Agar...and now Macca. Your young British coaches, in fact (Brian Mac has other experience and traits which may help explain why he is proving the exception?).

I'm a great believer in the ability of inspirational and charismatic leaders to deliver far more than you'd expect from the resources they have to work with. Military history let alone sporting history is full of such examples. As it is of highly capable but technocratic leaders who fail to inspire, resulting in underperformance. Maybe we need look no further for an explanation?