Mon 13 Feb: Ch: York Knights v Bradford Bulls KO 19:45 (Viaplay)

[Madrileño]

18 minutes ago, Simon Hall said:

I think we’ll get better as the season goes on, with about 7 of our “star” players to come back into the side. 

Thanks. Why so many injuries pre-season?

[dboy]

So we have established - the best reason for having a Bulls team in SL is that they could get a 20k crowd against Leeds.

Well tough. It's not an attendance competition.

You don't grow the game by having "big" clubs who go bust - that makes the game smaller.

[dboy]

10 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

But as for your point about "paid their bills"....are you sure about that? I mean, are you really SURE about that? Solid financial clubs like Salford and Wakefield for instance? 

Ok bud,

 

Happy to debate this point with you.

Bulls went bust 5 times in a decade!

Wakefield were saved by the tight-fisted Michael Carter (only spends the money they generate - more clubs should try it), paid off all their historic debt, now own their own ground which is being heavily developed, and are one of only two clubs to be run at a profit! New stadium efforts will hopefully allow them to break the 6-8k attendance ceiling they have experienced.

Salford are a contrast. Cuckoo tenants, weak crowds (though hopefully improving), paying a high wage bill including marquee payments, have no player development pathways to speak of and have never paid their full rent!

But to stay on thread - York are an example of a club trying to do it right and earn promotion on the field. Bulls believe they have some historic right to be in SL, regardless of how badly they do on and off the field.

Until that mentality changes, they will never get their house in order.

Edited February 16, 2023 by dboy

[The Masked Poster]

19 minutes ago, dboy said:

So we have established - the best reason for having a Bulls team in SL is that they could get a 20k crowd against Leeds.

Well tough. It's not an attendance competition.

You don't grow the game by having "big" clubs who go bust - that makes the game smaller.

You think it's about "getting the bulls in SL"? You're not listening and despite what you claim, obviously have a real issue with Bradford.

I'm not personally bothered if the Bulls are in SL or the Pennine League. What I'm saying is that nobody else has replaced them - and it doesn't look like anyone will.

This is not good for the game and shows the lack of depth. It's all very well you ranting on about what happens on the pitch but there's more to it than that. But you're happy to see 5k attendances in SL so I don't think we're going to agree anytime soon. 

Oh and @Madrileño Bradford isn't big-ish......it's big. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

9 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

Again, this is not the point. How and why Bradford fell from grace is irrelevant. The point is there has been no replacement. 

But it's apparently ok as miraculously now every other Rl club pays their bills. 

So, let's be clear, you want basket case, unsustainable (financially) clubs in SL? 

[dboy]

7 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

You think it's about "getting the bulls in SL"? You're not listening and despite what you claim, obviously have a real issue with Bradford.

I'm not personally bothered if the Bulls are in SL or the Pennine League. What I'm saying is that nobody else has replaced them - and it doesn't look like anyone will.

This is not good for the game and shows the lack of depth. It's all very well you ranting on about what happens on the pitch but there's more to it than that. But you're happy to see 5k attendances in SL so I don't think we're going to agree anytime soon. 

Oh and @Madrileño Bradford isn't big-ish......it's big. 

Replace what?

A basket case club, who had big crowds, but still couldn't make the sums add up. Five times.

It's not about replacing their crowds, it's about replacing them with a well run club, who have earned it on the field, whilst remaining solvent.

That's what the game has done.

[The Masked Poster]

1 minute ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

So, let's be clear, you want basket case, unsustainable (financially) clubs in SL? 

Please read the thread mate, seriously do it 

I aren't arguing for ANY PARTICULAR CLUB. I'm pointing out that RL has lost a big top flight club and is nowhere near replacing them with anything close.

Call me weird but I don't see that as a cause for celebration, only lamentable. 

Now, purely for the avoidance of doubt - I aren't saying Bradford or anyone else should be in SL. Not sure if that is clear enough but I'm hoping. 

[The Masked Poster]

1 minute ago, dboy said:

Replace what?

A basket case club, who had big crowds, but still couldn't make the sums add up. Five times.

It's not about replacing their crowds, it's about replacing them with a well run club, who have earned it on the field, whilst remaining solvent.

That's what the game has done.

Lol. Now crowds don't matter? I'm sorry friend but I'll leave it there. 

 

[dboy]

12 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

 

Oh and @Madrileño Bradford isn't big-ish......it's big. 

Let's put it this way - if you are a massive club, with regular on-field success, with huge crowds, a massive commercial presence, a huge media footprint and front-line sponsors and you can't make the numbers add up to pay your bills (x5) - you do not deserve to be in the top division of your sport.

[The Masked Poster]

Just now, dboy said:

Let's put it this way - if you are a massive club, with regular on-field success, with huge crowds, a massive commercial presence, a huge media footprint and front-line sponsors and you can't make the numbers add up to pay your bills (x5) - you do not deserve to be in the top division of your sport.

What has that got to do with the size of Bradford? 

[dboy]

3 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

What has that got to do with the size of Bradford? 

Because the crowd potential is directly proportional to the catchment population.

And yet, they couldn't run a solvent business there.

Edited February 16, 2023 by dboy

[Simon Hall]

1 hour ago, Madrileño said:

Thanks. Why so many injuries pre-season?

Most are carried over from last year. James Cunningham & Matty Marsh have got injured in the last two games.

 

(Sorry to interrupt the "Why Bradford Should/Shouldn't Be In Super League" thread)

[The Masked Poster]

8 minutes ago, dboy said:

Because the crowd potential is directly proportional to the catchment population.

And yet, they couldn't run a solvent business there.

It has nothing to do with your points whatsoever. All clubs get a pretty small percentage of their population attending, so what's unique about them? 

And seriously, you are talking about solvent businesses? In Rugby League? 

See you around maybe 

[dboy]

If you can service your debts, you are solvent. It doesn't matter where the money comes from e.g. assets or liquidity.

Hence, until there is an issue, all current clubs are solvent.

Of course, for some, the sugar-daddy clubs, problems could always be just around the corner. I don't think they are appropriate business models either, but until one pops, it is what it is.

I'd hope IMG will have an element of grading linked to financial sustainability and the game won't suffer another Bulls episode.

[Tippytoe]

55 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Please read the thread mate, seriously do it 

I aren't arguing for ANY PARTICULAR CLUB. I'm pointing out that RL has lost a big top flight club and is nowhere near replacing them with anything close.

Call me weird but I don't see that as a cause for celebration, only lamentable. 

Now, purely for the avoidance of doubt - I aren't saying Bradford or anyone else should be in SL. Not sure if that is clear enough but I'm hoping. 

I get what you're saying Bradford is a massive city and it's every one else's fault their not is Sl anymore and no other club will ever match up,  and it's sad meanwhile Sl starts tonight shrouded in controversy top flight Rl knows how to promote itself. 

 

 

[The Blues Ox]

I'm a little confused with the arguments here but before Bullmania I remember going to watch games at Odsal where there would be barely 2000 on the terraces in the top division so although the competition did lose a club that could generate huge crowds it also shows that it is possible to go from tiny crowds to large crowds so in theory could another team possibly get to the point where they get more than 10k plus on a regular basis? From a statistical point of view through history its very easy to point to Bradford's hey day as an outliner and all they have done recently is watch their averages revert to the mean. History shows a number of teams have done this so it would be silly to suggest that history won't repeat and we won't see another club emerge for a few years of glory before also facing a rapid decline.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:

Please read the thread mate, seriously do it 

I aren't arguing for ANY PARTICULAR CLUB. I'm pointing out that RL has lost a big top flight club and is nowhere near replacing them with anything close.

Call me weird but I don't see that as a cause for celebration, only lamentable. 

Now, purely for the avoidance of doubt - I aren't saying Bradford or anyone else should be in SL. Not sure if that is clear enough but I'm hoping. 

They have been replaced: by a more sustainable, solvent club while you're still arguing for a 'Bradford like' basket case. Their 'greatness' was an illusion and as with almost all financial bubbles it eventually burst.

[The Masked Poster]

9 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

They have been replaced: by a more sustainable, solvent club while you're still arguing for a 'Bradford like' basket case. Their 'greatness' was an illusion and as with almost all financial bubbles it eventually burst.

Jesus,I aren't arguing for any basket case clubs to be included. I would be a very happy bunny if all clubs were financially solvent but they are far from it. 

And I don't know who this sustainable solvent club might be because they are all just the stroke of a rich guys pen away from not being so. They most certainly are not sustainable on current crowds anyway.

What is also not being acknowledged while dismissing Bradford as a "basket case" is that they never had any real investment unlike other clubs, so everything was bound to go pop eventually. But what might have been with even modest investment by a benefactor.

But as a final note, when Bradford eventually go under, I won't be losing any sleep although it will be sad. And it definitely won't do the wider game any good.

Take it easy.

[The Masked Poster]

1 hour ago, Simon Hall said:

Most are carried over from last year. James Cunningham & Matty Marsh have got injured in the last two games.

 

(Sorry to interrupt the "Why Bradford Should/Shouldn't Be In Super League" thread)

You're partly correct, it has drifted from the actual game but it most definitely isn't a "Bradford should be in SL" argument. Not for a minute. 

[dboy]

11 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

 

And I don't know who this sustainable solvent club might be because they are all just the stroke of a rich guys pen away from not being so. They most certainly are not sustainable on current crowds anyway.

 

"Solvency is the ability of a company to meet its long-term debts and financial obligations."

You are conflating sustainable and solvent.

While ever someone like, for example, Ken Davy underwrites Hudds, they are solvent.

Whether those kinds of clubs are ultimately sustainable remains to be seen in the fulness of time.

Bulls were neither sustainable nor solvent.

That they could fail financially with the huge crowds you recall, is testament to how badly they were run.

They do not deserve sympathy, nor do they deserve favour just because "they had big crowds".

[OdsalBull]

Nice to see a bit of a distraction from the bulls horrorshow on monday. Look forward to super duper league starting tonight with the eventual winners wigan, saints or leeds crowned in october at old trafford 

[The Masked Poster]

2 hours ago, dboy said:

"Solvency is the ability of a company to meet its long-term debts and financial obligations."

You are conflating sustainable and solvent.

While ever someone like, for example, Ken Davy underwrites Hudds, they are solvent.

Whether those kinds of clubs are ultimately sustainable remains to be seen in the fulness of time.

Bulls were neither sustainable nor solvent.

That they could fail financially with the huge crowds you recall, is testament to how badly they were run.

They do not deserve sympathy, nor do they deserve favour just because "they had big crowds".

They had no investment so we'll never really know exactly how bad they were run? Was it pure recklessness? Or was it a gamble that had to be played and risked?

Since you mentioned Huddersfield, let's assume Ken Davy walked away tomorrow, would they then be "well run"? Or would they maybe take a gamble on signing players they can't afford in a bid to stay in SL? (As several have done and still do)Then if that doesn't work......they go t!ts up. It is a whisker away from it happening to probably all clubs but it doesn't necessarily mean they are badly run, sometimes risks are taken that don't pay off - in all areas of life. 

Having 10 "well run clubs" in the top tier with crowds of 5000 would only going to accelerate the disappearance of RL from the sporting mainstream even faster. However moral that argument may be. 

 

[dboy]

3 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

They had no investment so we'll never really know exactly how bad they were run? Was it pure recklessness? Or was it a gamble that had to be played and risked?

Since you mentioned Huddersfield, let's assume Ken Davy walked away tomorrow, would they then be "well run"? Or would they maybe take a gamble on signing players they can't afford in a bid to stay in SL? (As several have done and still do)Then if that doesn't work......they go t!ts up. It is a whisker away from it happening to probably all clubs but it doesn't necessarily mean they are badly run, sometimes risks are taken that don't pay off - in all areas of life. 

Having 10 "well run clubs" in the top tier with crowds of 5000 would only going to accelerate the disappearance of RL from the sporting mainstream even faster. However moral that argument may be. 

 

They had no investment so we'll never really know exactly how bad they were run? IF THERE WAS NO INVESTMENT, THEN BY DEFINITION, THEY WERE BADLY RUN. CLEARLY THAT WASN'T WORTH THE RISK.

Since you mentioned Huddersfield, let's assume Ken Davy walked away tomorrow, would they then be "well run"? NO, IT'S NOT A SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL - I DON'T LIKE IT - BUT RIGHT NOW, IT WORKS FOR THEM. THEY ARE SOLVENT. 

Having 10 "well run clubs" in the top tier with crowds of 5000 would only going to accelerate the disappearance of RL from the sporting mainstream even faster. WHO'S AIM IS THAT? WE NEED 20 WELL RUN CLUBS, BUT BE REALISTIC - SL IS A B-TIER SPORT, AS MUCH AS IT PAINS ME TO SAY THAT. 14 TEAMS AVERAGING 10K WOULD BE A REALISTIC GOAL IN THE MEDIUM TERM.

[Tippytoe]

1 hour ago, The Masked Poster said:

They had no investment so we'll never really know exactly how bad they were run? Was it pure recklessness? Or was it a gamble that had to be played and risked?

Since you mentioned Huddersfield, let's assume Ken Davy walked away tomorrow, would they then be "well run"? Or would they maybe take a gamble on signing players they can't afford in a bid to stay in SL? (As several have done and still do)Then if that doesn't work......they go t!ts up. It is a whisker away from it happening to probably all clubs but it doesn't necessarily mean they are badly run, sometimes risks are taken that don't pay off - in all areas of life. 

Having 10 "well run clubs" in the top tier with crowds of 5000 would only going to accelerate the disappearance of RL from the sporting mainstream even faster. However moral that argument may be. 

 

Some Bradford fans have historically blamed the Harris transfer as the reason for their continued financial plight which now sees them in administration and just days away from potentially being liquidated.

[DEANO]

Anyone know what the score was on Monday night?