No idea, its your thread. I was referring to the title of the thread on the Bulls board, to which Flyingprat was referring when starting this thread. The thread where the issue being debated (until Flyingprat tried to hijack it with another of his regular anti-Bull vomitfests) was the reported £8m settlement to Leeds rugby UNION to buy themselves out of what was assumed to be the team sponsorship deal. I at least was concerned as a taxpayer.

The deal wasn't just a sponsorship deal though they bought a stake in the union side when they were re-branded Leeds Carnegie.
Plus lets not forget the Education facility they use full time in the Carnegie stand.

Not my thread guv.

"Yours" as in Southstander's. I made it clear who started the thread.

Looks like the semantics police are out in force tonight.

For rhinoms: whether it was sponsorship or actually buying into the side, it does not really change the argument IMO. I still can't see what business a university has in either activity on this sort of scale. The Hudds Uni deal with the Fart owners is on a much smaller scale and I think may be far more proportionate (as well as being money coming into RL which I'd anyway be reluctant to knock). And I don't think anyone has been making an issue over Leeds Met's investment in bricks and mortar facilities for sporting and education purposes - that is much more within a Uni's remit, especially one with the long sporting tradition that Leeds Met has via the former Carnegie College.

Oh wind your neck in you miserable feck.

It wasn't a sponsorship deal. It was team ownership. Carnegie bought the Tykes off us (or a majority share), realised what a money pit they were and paid us £8 million to take them back.

Don't you wish Hetherington were running your club?

But unconcerned as a Taxpayer when it involves the Bulls playing in a brand new stadium!!! oops

Did you actually ask that question?

In your opinion.

Which of course you voiced to the relevant authority at the time the deal was done, it being a very public deal and reported on widely at the time.

You did register your concern didn't you ?

You do understand what the Uni got out of the deal as a business don't you ?

Whilst many of his staff may not have liked him there is no doubt that Simon Lee attempted to run the university as a business rather than the traditional "We'll just spend all the government grant and wait for the students to turn up" traditional University model, it upset those traditionalist academics but thats what happens when those who do not have to measure their salary by means of customer sales suddenly wake up in the real world.

Did you object to them sponsoring (and possibly saving) the Challenge Cup too or is that a different sort of public money ?

You did object to all of this at the time didn't you ?

Well, the "bank" Hetherington works for is doing very, very well so its' not a particularly good analogy at the moment in time.

There's a lot of concern being voice [iright now[/i, some time after the event by indignant, Rugby League, non-Leeds supporting, tax payers, that much is for sure.

I'll give Adey-bull the benefit of the doubt but I suspect much of this is motivated by jealousy that their club hasn'#t fostered the same kind of partnership that Leeds have with Carnegie.

You know what, I am a tax payer and I don't mind my tax money being spent for the benefit of Rugby League and sports in general. I get more benefit from that than if they spent it on the Arts, immigration or Moat maintenance for Tory Peers.

The question mark at the end was a bit of a give away.