I believe he mentioned a "Pork Sword"

Call it semantics if you like, but what they own is a right to occupy the site for a fixed period of time. The value of that particular right is going to be driven by what the freeholder allows the leaseholder to do with the land. If the terms of the lease restrict it to sporting or recreational use for example then that would likely reduce its value if the RFL wanted to sell it on.

This statememnt I agree with.

However, the issue I had was claims that the RFL didn't own Odsal because, sa you now say, they do.

Depends how you define "Odsal".

The fixtures and fittings such as the stands will, for the time being anyway, likely belong to Bradford Bulls Holdings Limited, so they can't sell those.

The land itself is owned by the Council, so they can't sell that either.

So which bits of "Odsal are they selling?

Gary Hetherington urges clubs not to asset strip Bradford Bulls following Administration.

Translation - there's nothing we want so nobody else should either. Classic Darth.

It feels like this all stems from the harris signing. (i know it's almost a cliche now to say this, and no doubt someone will come along and say ''there were other underlying issues'')

It just seemed to start a chain reaction of things going wrong, and everytime something went wrong it resulted in less income and more debt.

It's like it put a curse on the club.

Top players left
league position was affected
average attendances dropped

all this resulted in significantly less income while the harris situation alone created large costs in legal fees and compensation.

Add in the fact the upkeep of odsal was costing alot and poor management who couldn't make the correct decisions to reduce the deficit.

I don't think it would be easy for them to start again in championship one either.

If bradford don't find a buyer before liquidation this will not end well for them, not at all.

The rfl are in a situation where, if it comes to that, due to the MM weekend fixture it's impossible for them to be fair to everyone.

If they allow pre liquidation results to stand, and post liquidation results to be a bye, we've gained 2 points on other teams because we play them 3 times.

If they expunge all results against bulls, we've been screwed over necause we play them 3 times.

But, that's what happens when you f*ck about having some teams play each other more than others.

If the RFL had announced before MW (when the Bulls problems were well known) that Leeds' result in that game would stand it would have been the best of a bad job. Trying to sort it out afterwards, when the winners and losers have set agendas, makes it a nightmare.

That would have been ridiculous though - pre-empting things that were by no means certain. The RFL would have been mad to make that kind of comment at that stage.

One way is to expunge all games, except the MM result

also if they dont form a Newco in 10 days there will be no money to run the club / team

Certainly not ideal but best of a bad job as I said. They do actually need a process for dealing with clubs dropping out of SL but because the existing approach, simply expunging records, just doesnt deal with the quirk caused by MW. They could perhaps have made a low key announcement covering the general issue rather focusing specifically on the Bulls. Whatever decision they make if the Bulls fail to complete the season, the problem will not go away. Who's to say it will not happen again next year?

Bulls have an intersted buyer!!! www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... withdrawn/ But they've withdrawn their interest. The situation looks more critical by the day.

Bulls have an intersted buyer!!! www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... withdrawn/ But they've withdrawn their interest. The situation looks more critical by the day.