Din't the council sponnsor City some time back when the had the Mythbreaker logo on the shirts? I'm not nit picking but City has had help over the year but nows the time for a joined up sport policy that works for everyone.

Interesting and informed debate on this thread.
I suppose it had to happen on RAB eventually...

That's absolutely true. Something HAS to happen with the Bulls or we'll potentially lose our spot in SL, though I'm nor sure just what, though I notice the club, outwardly at least, seem still confident, in [isomething[/i happening on the sports village front.

As for City, I can't really say, though I hope they don't get relegated. It would appear though that the cost of hiring the stadium from Mr Gibb is a big part of the reason for their financial problems and lack of recruitment. I've got to say the longer the village project stutters along the more a link up seems likely.

Incidentally, you say City fans don't like us 'pretending' we didn't want the improvements but, speaking as someone who was a speedway fan from the days at the Shay, I have to say that the vast majority of Bulls' fans would have much preferred the track to disappear and the money spent elsewhere ( I know it's daft, and the money wouldn't have been available but for the speedway final, but that's fans for you) and - not forgetting that it left us with one fewer stand - it's not really surprising that some would feel that way.

what always strikes me when this topic comes up is that there was never any mention of a groundshare at VP from the city side until the 15 million the council earmarked for the OSV became public knowledge. Ever since they've been making noises about a groundshare (as long as its at THEIR ground and not odsal or a new neutral ground of course). Seems to me they just see it as an opportunity to get their ground bought back for them and get them out of the crippling rent agreement they got themselves into.

theres two issues that concern me. First the blatant disinformation being spread, mainly by the head of their supporters organisation, that the council is giving bulls 15 million. This is NOT the case. The council has explicitly stated the 15 million is for areas of the OSV specifically excluding the actual stadium itself which the bulls and private partners have always been expected to fund themselves. The 15 million is for the infrastructure and other facilities (repacement for richard dunn, all weather pitches etc). Secondly what would happen a couple of years down the line if the premiership brought in the ruling they keep threatening about premiership clubs not being allowed to groundshare. Unlikely though it is at the moment, If city were ever in a position where a return to the premiership was a possibility would they expect us to do one?

Quote Duckman="Duckman"It does [imostly [/iand I can't remember the exact details at the moment but IIRC the pitch at VP is not big enough at the moment, with the concrete hoardings being too close to the in goal areas. I think any permanent move would need work to increase the pitch size. I think the rfl were fine with it last time on a temp basis but it would require work for a permanent move. #edit# found my previous links; www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... rt%201.pdf www.bradfordcityfc.co.uk/page/Co ... 66,00.html The pitch size at VP is 103m x 64m. According to the RFL rules pitches need to be a minimum length of 88m goal line to goal line, 2 in goal areas of minimum 6m and 3m clearence behind the dead ball line (2m in exceptional circumstances with padding, but this is not a long term solution IMO) which gives an absolute minimum length of space needed of 106m. I don't know exactly where the VP measurement is taken from, but its clear to me the pitch as it is at VP is not long enough. Didn'y someone at City float the idea of removing some of the front rows of the seating to accomodate a bigger pitch if we groundshare?'" Take a look at the pitch dimensions of Olt Trafford. 105m. Anyway, if that idea was used about a 3 way ownership, that would be the best thing for the teams and the city IMO. The pitch could be extented although this could mean taking away a couple of rows of seats maybe. Not a problem with the capacity at 25k. It would be a fantastic RL stadium when full though!

Quote Duckman="Duckman"It does [imostly [/iand I can't remember the exact details at the moment but IIRC the pitch at VP is not big enough at the moment, with the concrete hoardings being too close to the in goal areas. I think any permanent move would need work to increase the pitch size. I think the rfl were fine with it last time on a temp basis but it would require work for a permanent move. #edit# found my previous links; www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... rt%201.pdf www.bradfordcityfc.co.uk/page/Co ... 66,00.html The pitch size at VP is 103m x 64m. According to the RFL rules pitches need to be a minimum length of 88m goal line to goal line, 2 in goal areas of minimum 6m and 3m clearence behind the dead ball line (2m in exceptional circumstances with padding, but this is not a long term solution IMO) which gives an absolute minimum length of space needed of 106m. I don't know exactly where the VP measurement is taken from, but its clear to me the pitch as it is at VP is not long enough. Didn'y someone at City float the idea of removing some of the front rows of the seating to accomodate a bigger pitch if we groundshare?'" Take a look at the pitch dimensions of Olt Trafford. 105m. Anyway, if that idea was used about a 3 way ownership, that would be the best thing for the teams and the city IMO. The pitch could be extented although this could mean taking away a couple of rows of seats maybe. Not a problem with the capacity at 25k. It would be a fantastic RL stadium when full though!

Odsal and VP have the same capacity, besides if we were to share personally I would tear down the TL Dallas stand and the stand which says BANTAMS and I would make them into standing terreces.

when did football league start allowing standing terraces again? thought they were only permitted in the bottom end conferences.

Nevermind then forgot about that rule!!! But Rugby League is better when your stood !

agree with that entirely. purely personal preference but numbers stood on pop side compared to sat in stand tends to indicate majority of fans think same too. Went to every game at VP last time we were there and hated having to sit, combined with constant up and down as people went to loo/bars etc. On a standing terrace people can find a way through without disrupting everyone else. If they could find a way to incorporate a standing terrace for 3-4k fans at VP (maybe just keep it ssut for football fixtures?) then I'd be a lot less opposed to a move there if there was no possibility of improving odsal.

Agree entirely. However I don't think we should groundshare because the City fans will moan about ruining the pitch. Take 2001 for example, They were in Prem/just relegated, we were SL champions but because they were high up they thought that the Bulls were just messing up pitch week in week out and no possibility of groundshare. Now seen as though City are on the brink of being relegated into Conference they suddenly like the idea of Groundshare.

1. The location of VP is poor, rubbish parking, Manningham Lane would be packed every weekend.
2. Two sides of VP is big the other two are tiny compared.
3. TL Dallas stand looks poor, it makes the stadium look uneven.
4. Why should the Bulls share at VP with City when City arn't doing anything?

I think we should scrap the idea of groundshare at VP, either get the £15 million for OSV and have Park Avenue and City there, or build a Bradford Sports Complex with 25,000 capacity stadium, mixture of Black/Amber/Red and Maroon/Amber-Yellow seats. with 5,000 standing in front of 2 of the stands (like The Willows do). These will be closed on City games. Joint ownership of ground, each have to pay the same amount every month/year. You could even build this 'new' ground where Richard Dunns is. Use Odsal as the training pitch during season.

If thats correct then OT makes the cut, just, minimum with 2m spacing is 104m, my point was about long term where you'd need the 3m spacing for safety week to week giving you a minimum needed of 106m, which VP is not. But either way I'm not sure of the OT dimensions but they do have a full 100m in play for the GF, with in goal areas plus some spacing.

At VP as it is you need a short pitch for rl like we had when we were there, which is far from ideal but as has been said its probably easily fixed by taking out seats if we're joint tennants and isn't a real stumbling block to any move I suspect.

I do agree we need some joined up thinking regarding the long term future of professional sport in Bradford, to aid both clubs but I'm not confident given the track record so far.