Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:24 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I think the contract with Sky only stipulates a minimum of 12 teams and a max of 14.

As long as Sky can show 2 games a week they'll be happy, I think the main thing for them is having decent viewing figures & a good geographical spread for their advertisers - one less team in the heartlands is unlikely to make too much of an impact on that.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:49 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Sorry to kick you when you are down but, even if the players haven't spoken to other clubs, their agents will certainly be looking at options for them for next season IF the players are not going to play at Bradford.
Some may have options already and tbf, you cant baleme a guy for securing his future, regardless of how much they hope to be at Bradford next season.

Would be surprised if players don't have options lined up for next year should we cease to exist or be in a lower league. Point that was being answers was the constant carping about why we don't sell players now, and I've heard the same that certain more marketable players have refused to talk to other clubs while Bradford exist, effectively taking away administrators ability to sell them.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:05 pm  

mat wrote:

Would be surprised if players don't have options lined up for next year should we cease to exist or be in a lower league. Point that was being answers was the constant carping about why we don't sell players now, and I've heard the same that certain more marketable players have refused to talk to other clubs while Bradford exist, effectively taking away administrators ability to sell them.

I genuinely wouldn't have thought they'd have a say in the matter.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:10 pm  

JINJER wrote:

I genuinely wouldn't have thought they'd have a say in the matter.

There may reach a point when they have no other option, but at the moment, it is quite easy for them to say 'No, I'm not signing for X, no matter what kind of offer you have'.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:27 pm  

JINJER wrote:

I genuinely wouldn't have thought they'd have a say in the matter.

Why wouldn't they? They aren't 'slaves', in fact players hold more and more power in professional sport. The days when clubs could simply treat players as commodities are long gone, especially now that agents have become so common place.

Players like John Bateman and Elliot Whitehead, local lads who came through our system, have a genuine and deep-rooted affinity for the club. They simply don't want to play for other teams - obviously there could come a time when they have no choice for the sake of their careers, but until that time they have repeatedly said that want the Bulls to survive, prosper and to be a part of that.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:30 pm  

JINJER wrote:

I genuinely wouldn't have thought they'd have a say in the matter.

Think you'll find slavery was abolished a long time ago. Club can agree to sell a player but if player refuses to agree personal terms deal can't go through. Only sanction administrator has on player is to make them redundant making them a free agent and worthless to club anyway.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:31 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

It's not 'FACT' at all

Six months ago takes us back to the end of January i.e before the season had even started. At that point there was no reason to believe that things weren't progressing as normal as we built up to the start of the new season. In fact we were able to sign Karl Pryce under the salary cap at that time. There was absolutely no reason to be selling players at that stage, so far as anyone could determine.

Subsequent events proved that this confidence was misplaced, but by then it was too late to be able to make any significant amount of money from a fire sale of players

Hindsight is wonderful isn't it?

are you telling me the directors at Bradford and the RFL for that matter did not know the club was in trouble in Jan wake up pal

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:44 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Still got to find the money and the cap space to pay them.

I'm thinking here more of next season, although a temporary 'exemption', as we had for the overseas quota for ex Crusaders' players, wouldn't surprise me.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:57 pm  

GET EM ON SIDE REF wrote:

are you telling me the directors at Bradford and the RFL for that matter did not know the club was in trouble in Jan wake up pal

They did know they were struggling as they've probably known for years. They thought they had a plan to deal with it, I'm sure they would claim circumstances conspired against them.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:15 am  

Northern Lad wrote:

They did know they were struggling as they've probably known for years. They thought they had a plan to deal with it, I'm sure they would claim circumstances conspired against them.

That is the simple truth! But something must have gone badly wrong for the collapse to happen as it did. I suspect certain vacant sponsorship such Stadium Naming rights etc didn't materialise, and the Club continually carrying forward a debt that had kept growing like a tumour till it Haemorrhaged!
Caisley knew what was happening and panicked just to save his Directors liabilty is what his intrvention looks like!