WiganWarriorsFans.com

The 'book man' at London will surely have noticed and you're quite right Geoff, it shouldn't have been allowed to get to that stage. With any luck London and the RFL will have learnt from their mistakes and something like this will not happen again.

I have no idea how they managed to amass such a great debt. If the salary cap is as you say (and I would imagine this is the correct wording) is 50% of income, (or turnover) then it doesn't include any costs which are incurred (e.g. rent and services to Brentford F.C.*), it would just take into account takings from merchandise and ticket sales. It would not include marketing costs, rent, management salaries (are there too many cooks stirring the broth?), etc. Higher overheads could be to blame!

* A friend of a friend worked at Brentford and she did tickets for the Broncos so there'll surely be some fee for that service. They have a much more difficult job on their hands down there and I for one appreciate the work and effort they put in isn't easy and would challenge anyone who that thinks London should be thrown from SL to weigh up the pros and cons and I'm sure they'd come to the same conclusion as me!

How much more money is going to be wsted on the Bronco`s. The RL could have used the wasted money for global developement or at the very least regional developement ie up North. When will they realise that for the past 20 odd years, London Bronco`s/Fulham/Kent Invicta ia a dead horse.They need to put it out of its misery!!!!

GeoffN posted:
I agree, Rob, that having a London club in SL is good for the game, but not a bankrupt London club! OK it's a 'legal fiction' that they're still solvent but the fact remains that £3m has gone missing somewhere, despite SL's insistence on clubs having a 'sound financial structure'as a criteria for being in SL.
As I said in the 20/20 thread, if they can only spend 50% of their income on players, where has the rest gone? Not all to Dubai, surely?
IMO, the whole justification of the salary cap was to prevent this sort of thing.
Rob, it may not have a direct on us as wigan fans, but it's still bad publicity for the game in this country.
I'm noy saying the RFL are wrong in letting them continue, just that it should not have been allowed to get to that stage - a debt like that doesn't just appear suddenly, it must have been steadily getting worse for some time. Did anyone notice?

Clubs will now use this as a reason to get away with finacial problems. The Broncos got away with it so shall we thats going to be the moto now.

We can not relax rules for any club as rule are rules. Once a club breaks them and gets away with them then more will follow.

thegimble posted:
Clubs will now use this as a reason to get away with finacial problems. The Broncos got away with it so shall we thats going to be the moto now.

We can not relax rules for any club as rule are rules. Once a club breaks them and gets away with them then more will follow.

If Bradford went bust would RL die in Yorkshire?
If Whitehaven went bust would RL die in Cumbria?
If Wigan went bust would RL die in Lancashire?
If London went bust would RL die in the South of England?
Spot the difference!

robjoenz posted:

thegimble posted:
Clubs will now use this as a reason to get away with finacial problems. The Broncos got away with it so shall we thats going to be the moto now.

We can not relax rules for any club as rule are rules. Once a club breaks them and gets away with them then more will follow.

If Bradford went bust would RL die in Yorkshire?
If Whitehaven went bust would RL die in Cumbria?
If Wigan went bust would RL die in Lancashire?
If London went bust would RL die in the South of England?
Spot the difference!

Surly this is more to do with the League as a whole than an area of the country. You can not bend the rules. Rules are rules nevermind the consequences. Only 2000-3000 at Broncos last week i think that the game has already died there.

"London, who are now debt-free, are expected to complete the signing of New Zealand international Vinnie Anderson on a three-year contract."
(from Sporting Life)

Am I the only one to think this is taking the #### ?

No your not alone in thinking it takes the ####!

read in my paper today that the other super league clubs voted on weather to keep them in or not .the vote went in there favour 5 for 4 against 2 clubs abstained widnes and wakefield the stuppied bit is that widnes complained because the broncos had bought players in the closed season that they wanted if those two clubs had not bottled it we would have got rid of them instead they stay and we have a league next season of ten clubs fighting of relegation becaue the broncos are untouchable and so is the new french team

I thought the Broncos were no longer untouchable?

if you can right off 3 million and carry on as though nothing as happened i would say they are untouchable if they finish at the bottom who would bet against a rule change