Quote: Bulliac "It would be an interesting development if we were to let the lease [from the RFL] go, since, as I understand it, as no Bradford club would then be playing at the ground, one of the major conditions of the primary lease [the RFL's] would also be be broken and the council would be withing it's rights to cancel it.
I guess the RFL could ask/coerce one of the local amateur clubs to play there, so as to keep their 'investment'.
There is also the other point about the 'Odsal settlement', whereby the club had to repay a proportion of the monies received if they left before 2019. Of course, with the comings and goings, owners coming in and going out [and presumably, changes to the lease wording/] it might be hard to work out who had responsibility to pay, though I suspect it might be 'the club' rather than any holding company.'"
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.