im sure the RFL would just love losing the only paying tenant they have with probably no possibility of letting it to anyone else in the current financial climate. wouldnt the bulls have had to commit to stay there for a period anyway under the lease sale?
M.P.s who needs them anyway!

I understand why VP isn't the preferred option but not sure why it's a non starter. I agree with the other posters who draw attention to an unspecified 'x' factor that very often accompanies success but not quite always.

Considering we have very recently seen the real prospect of having Odsal but no Bradford Bulls, and Valley Parade but no Bradford City I think there must come a point where a discussion involving Bulls, City, Council, MPs, RFL is kick started from a position of ground zero i.e what has been spent already is now gone.

I want, a decent team, financially viable, in a good stadium capable of hosting international RL and semi finals etc, with good corporate, retail and admin facilities, with a long and secure tenure preferably from the Council and good car parking. How do we get there?

Would Bradford have the inclination/stomach for the legal fight to extract themselves from their curernt lease?

The only way that would be logical is if the facilities are used far more intensively.

Ultimately, the only way shared stadia really work is when BOTH clubs leave their existing grounds and a new ground is developed where they can start over as equal partners - see Wigan, Hull, Huddersfield etc

But what are the chances in the current economic climate? And if even someone came along waving a wad of cash, the traditionalists of both clubs would still fight it tooth and nail.

They reckoned that 60% of their monthly income was going on utilities and other stadium costs. I think their fundamental problenm was that they had a 20,000 seater stadium but were getting crowds of 2,000. But they clearly believed that the move from their old "hole in the ground" to a new stadium had significantly increased their costs.

If we moved to Valley Parade we would inherite up to 50% of the rent price but what if our Odsal rent is £300,000 a year whereas VP is £900,000 a year, we would have to pay £150,000 more than we do now. (Figures are made up for the purpose of this example). In addition to this we would have to pay for the bars to open, stewards, staff etc.

Also burgers at VP are about £4-5 which is higher than the Bulls (not much more but still more), beer is more expensive at VP, all food is, pop is more expensive (how many kids buy pop?). Fans will prefer the Odsal pricing. Don't get me wrong I see all the benefits of moving to VP but I also see more negatives. The Bulls and the Bantams should ground share if a new stadium was built or Odsal was made into an all seater.

posted this on a different thread before this one started: still relevant!

Ward is getting invloved in trying to make the people of Bradford realise the lib dems still exist. FWIW I admire ward. He's a local bloke whose not afraid to stand up against the party line and do what he thinks is right for his constituents. remember, He was voted in to the constituency where he was a local councillor. The electorate knew what they were getting and they still wanted him. NOt like Galloway who promised the earth to a largely igonored and disillusioned electorate.

I am sick of seeing City and BUlls fans slagging each others stadium off. Simply put, there are advantages and disadvantages to both, and some genuine points in and amongst some absolute garbage, some of which has already crept into this thread! I am a season ticket holder at both, and I value the heritage and attachments that each club has. But at the moment the stadia the clubs play in are crippling them both financially!

To get both playing at one stadium as equal tennants would be the best course of action for both! Long term, I see no other alternative!

The case for both at VP:

A more modern stadium with better facilities in the ground. for everyday fans and corporates.
All under cover
All seater so never have to worry about license ever again.
modern, so much cheaper to maintain.
closer to the action
Good public transport (inc rail) links
Ample on and off street parking.

Case against VP:

Pitch too small so would need work doing.
In wrong part of City as most Bulls fans are from South Bradford. Perceived high crime rate ( although I work in the area, and go into manningham 3/4 times a week for city/socialising and my car hasnt been stolen or vandalised when Ive parked sensibly)
Not our own ground with our own history
Further from my house

Case for Odsal:

Our home
Unique bowl venue
Good bus links
Good on and off street parking
Terracing
Straight off motorway
nearer to my house


Case against odsal (from a rl and soccer POV)

too far from action
terracing
Expensive to run
lack of rail links without buses
Not enough seats for football
no roof


you could add more to each list.

I think it's more about the lack of housing and/or the number housing that is laying empty in the city. I live in the ward he covers, only two weeks ago we had a leaflet from him regarding the labour council ignoring the brown field sites for building and ear marking green field land to build on! Could odsal be the brown field land he was going on about what's prime for housing development? Plus he's a city fan so more money in the footy club!

Just a thought

Why don't Bradford City move in with Bulls at Odsal?

Genuine question. Is there a reason why? Other than lack of seats?

Who says the Gibb's pension fund would just allow the two clubs to play there for the price of one? Going on your figures of City currently paying £900K pa it's just as, or even more, likely that they'd ask for, say, £600K pa from both clubs; if two clubs are using the facility why wouldn't they want more?

Just for the record, don't forget that the Bulll's crowds dropped alarmingly the last time they played at VP - and that was when they were in their World Champions phase. Could we afford that again?

There is also still the problem of the Odsal lease. If memory serves we we told at the forum that nothing had changed under the lease except that the RFL had taken an intermediate lease between us and then council. It was specifically mentioned that were still responsible for upkeep and I assume that if we no longer play there we would still be responsible for repaying a large slice of the (already spent) settlement money to the council.

I wish that know nothing numpties from the government would keep out of it, to be honest. If it weren't for other know nothing numpties in government we would have had a new ground years ago. You know who you are Mr Byers. I'm pretty sick of these metropolitan apologists popping in to top up their publicity quotient, and Ward should go back London shut up.