How does that work in practice then?

can you actually read and comprehend what I have written????? I don't think you can. No where have I blamed supporters.... I have stated that any blame should lie with previous Chairmen, your best buddy Chris firmly amongst them. By the way, didn't he, along with Green, blame the supporters for not showing up??????

You can defend Caisley as much as you like, for me he is a major part of our issues that carry on to this day.

What idea? You said

I said


So I just corrected your view that the lease is "worthless" since it can only be used if the rugby ground is there. I just pointed out that the rugby playing requirement is only until 2019, whereas the lease runs till 2154. So maybe not that worthless after 2019?

The deal was done in 2002. The old stadium lease ran till 2019 which is where the relevance of 2019 came from. The new lease from 2002 is for 150 years. The settlement included paying the club £4.6 m in lieu of the previous deal where they would have been receiving £337,000 index linked for 17 years. The connection is thus that if the Bulls stopped playing at Odsal they would be in breach of their lease and could be out. The 2002 Lease was with Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd (not Bradford Northern (1964) Ltd) and unless anyone else knows different it remains the Head Lease although obviously now the head tenants are the RFL (it is normal for long leases to change hands)

As you've rightly pointed out FA, the 2019 date ceased to be about the lease itself as the old lease was superseded by the 150 year 'Settlement' lease. After the settlement, as I said, the date of 2019 was only ever about the money, that's the £4.6m, which you identified. If you don't accept that then we'll just have to differ on it.

Of course, as indeed I pointed out, the RFL's lease is a bargaining chip if the council has any plans for 'other uses'. The lease though, as I understand it, would have no [ipractical[/i use as the RFL would presumably have to keep the rugby ground they leased, or at least would be technically obliged to hand back the ground in the same state as it was when they took out their lease. That would, again presumably, preclude the RFL from building houses on it, say, though I don't think you could lease a house and just knock it down without the landlord's permission, so I'd guess the same would apply. Though again, I suspect your job gives you a bit more knowledge on that than I have.

I am not seeing where you think there's an argument. I only pointed out that the rugby requirement ends with well over a century of lease still remaining. That was all.


No. Under the lease they can do what they like, as long as they comply with planning. Which is kinda my point. (They'd need Council consent but there are only very limited grounds for withholding it.)