what indignation??? are you Chris Caisley by any chance?? If so, why did YOU send us into Admin?????? answers on a postcard

another one that fails to understand cause and effect.

What was the blooming cause?? where did it all start? small clue, not at Red Hall

I'm no fan of Red Hall, Nige and his cronies but way too many people are happy to point the finger at them rather than looking closer to home.

Caisley/Hood/Green and others can rot in hell for what they have done to this club. I sincerely hope that none of them step foot in Odsal again, ever

I think when someone comes to write the history of this sorry period they'll come to the conclusion that the RFL and member clubs often compounded the very great failings of successive owners.

No, FA that's not quite the case.

The date you refer to was the date the club had to play at Odsal until to avoid having to return of any of the 'Odsal settlement' money and has nothing to do with any 'covenants' which the council might, or might not, have placed on the ground. The council said at the time of the settlement, that they wanted to retain the ground for sport, so we assume (but don't actually know) that this formed part of the lease contract. However, this wouldn't be a normal type of 'covenant', made by some long gone donor, but simply a council decision, which I'd guess could be just as easily reversed in council.

What stands to reason though, is that, assuming rugby were to go, the council, as owner, would certainly want to be the major beneficiary if any more profitable use is found. Though, by the same token, the RFL would be in a strong position to bargain for their lease. Clearly, unless they came to an agreement or there is some breach of the lease, nothing can happen without the blessing of both parties.

Quite often people run away with their thoughts on this, what they forget is that the council will have to answer to the local taxpayers/population if Odsal/Richard Dunns is ever redeveloped whether it be for Rugby, housing or other.

Too much bull poop is written and then taken as gospel on forums without the required proof, its as if some things suit peoples agendas.....

How does that work in practice then?

You see you'r at it again. Distorting the overall piece I wrote to get across misinformation> I am not Chris Caisley, if so you may be facing a libel letter. All I stated was that no one should blame someone when they aren't privy of the facts. Certainly you are right that PH and MG had questions to answer reference the running of the club? firstly PH and NW (aka the RFL council) did the deed of selling off our historical birthright in the stadium for a derisory figure that left the club still in a perilous position. We the supporters raised £483k to help save our club and Hood stated that the RFL had agreed to advance £300k plus (I forget the figures without going to the file) which I suspect was the figure loaned to Wakefield to help keep them in SL. (again a well documented fact) of course the RFL reneged on that deal also. All the dealings from that fateful first Administration seemed to be orchestrated by the RFL insofar that every deal put onto the table was turned down, because the sale according to the RFL had to be unconditional. Another fact that came out of the admin report at that time was the specially set up company by SL Europe (RFL) called Neonreign Ltd (SIC) who put a derisory bid to the administrator to buy the club. This was accepted as all the other bidders had been turned down,(was that a conflict of interest, I hear you say, or not?) did you know that?? Of course at the 11th Hour a counter bid was accepted from OK for £150k and as that was the best bid in the mix it was accepted? Begin your process of blaming everything on the supporters of our club, and look to the other factors that brought about our demise...thats all I asked in the first letter. I have nothing more to say except that once the online petition against a certain CEO of the RFL finishes and indeed the court case brings further unsavoury situations to light, the meddling of that ruling council and the other SL clubs who were prepared to accept our central distribution cash to the tune of over £50k per club per year for 2 years have a stain on their reputations as well!

woooooo there!

SL(E) is made up of the SL club chairmen, not the RFL. come on who is distorting what here!

Again, I'm not distorting anything. I said, please feel free to quote, that we were to blame, the we being past Bradford chairmen not the fans/supporters.

quote - IT IS ALL OUR* DOING - yak yak yak

*OUR = past owners, directors and fecking idiots - who is what is your own to decipher.

Please note the asterix clarifying OUR. if you decipher fecking idiots to be fans.... so be it


Oh yeah please address your (or chris') libel letter to Bullpower2014 c/o RAB... that'll get you far. Or maybe you could find my email and try that..... give me strength!

You seem to be hell bent on blaming the RFL/Peter Hood, basically anyone but Caisley but he was part of the problem! Remember what Uncle Chris did as a job before a sports agent...... Sports Law.......


But that is all in the past and can not be changed however much we discuss it on here

Bit of an aside here but if SLE is made up of the SL Chairmen how is this affected by clubs going in and out of SL?

They did initially. Hood put in a buy-back clause for the leasehold, for the same price. Successive admins & a liquidation will have seen that clause vanish and also the last possibility of the RFL being forced to sell the lease back also vanished. Fortunately, Ralph has said they’ve produced over 10k documents to prove that the conflict of interest the RFL have, didn’t cause any conflict of interest....

Whilst it's not like me to argue, no. The Head Lease contains a requirement for the Tenant to use the pitch for the playing of first team rugby football until 31 May 2019.

Obviously the RFL bought the headlease and so that is now their obligation. But after May 2019 it will no longer be. They can then do whatever they want subject to normal planning permissions etc. (And of course subject to it being compatible with their obligations to their subtenant. But if there was noi longer any subtenant then there would be nothing standing in the tenant's way after 2019).

Clearly any two parties to any agreement can later agree to vary or remove any terms if they wish, but that's not the point.