Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "Legally the club is not an entity, each time a new owner arrives it is a case of entering into a new lease / sublease. So BBNL would have entered into a new sublease with RFL, with the consent of the head lessee (BMDC).
You'd assume that all the terms would normally remain the same, but without seeing the new lease, it's hard to say. But you wouldn't expect any landlord to water down its own protections / advantages / tenant's responsibilities, to its own detriment.
One obvious sticking point is the "repayment" clause. I would suggest it improbable the RFL "took over" that clause since it wasn't they who received the money.
One thing we can all be sure though is if the main parties find it expedient, a way could easily be found to end the whole "rugby at Odsal" arrangement and plead necessity.'"
I guess the council could do as they wish, since it was their clause in the first place, I assume they can ignore it, if they decide its in the public interest. If the "improvement" in the economy actually begins to appear on the ground and starts to help industry it may well be the council are sitting on a potential 'gold mine' at the end of the M606 and they would be happy to see the Bulls out of the way.
your kidding me think again
