The only way it will affect it is if they can't pay it.

If Chalmers couldn't do sums, he would lose half a million a year paying for Odsal rent and maintenance costs, until the club went tits again.

I fail to see how you, the RFL, or anybody, could think he had any rational choice but to refuse to sign a new lease, unless it was on terms that made financial sense.

Of course the decision may have (and already has had) other consequences - that's the thing with decisions - but if Bradford MDC and the RFL had put forward a new lease arrangement that the Bulls could afford, then they wouldn't have to move.

Unless you can explain how anyone would rationally sign a new lease that was the equivalent to signing the next death warrant ? Would YOU?

And another thing: as a result of their intransigence, and bluff-calling, the RFL now have no tenant paying rent, and are now responsible for the £400,000 maintenance costs of Odsal. In full.

I do hope they honour their self-imposed obligations to keep Odsal from the vultures and continue to shell out the cash preserve the iconic stadium for the wider game, as they professed to be doing when they stepped in. Or did they mean, we will be the landlord, take a load of rent, and make the Bulls pay to preserve the iconic stadium for the wider game?

I'm expecting some kind of update from the club today.
Silence will only convince me further that we're about to go pop again.

Just wondering how you would view his credibility if he'd signed a new lease committing the club to paying half a million a year in rent and maintenance for the foreseeable?

AC doesn't strike me as the sort that will bite his tongue if he feels something has been said or done that is unjust. So the fact that his pre RFL statement article is so far the only word we've had is odd, and I'm sure we'd all like some urgent clarifications from him.

For the avoidance of doubt, he's never had any in my book, I was being generous in my previous post.

Since you've asked the question, it would just make him as stupid as our previous owners who presumably agreed to the same.

Especially when you consider the impact it’s bound to have on season ticket sales.

Well, it's a shame you prefer hyperbole to discussion, but hey. I know this is the internet where hyperbole is king, but to say he" never had credibility" does seem to dismiss without a thought his rescuing of a dead-in-the-water club, assembling a decent squad with a fine coach, getting promotion and ending first year in the Championship just shy of the playoffs. He had no choice but either to take the existing arrangements "as was" when he took over, or walk away, but how does any of the above, or refusing to renew a clearly unaffordable arrangement, mean he has "no credibility"? Genuine question. On what are you basing your dismissive "he's never had any in my book"?

As I see it, the RFL will lose the profit they gain from us but still be responsible for paying the "peppercorn" rent to the council. Maintenance will be minimal since there will be no one using the ground and no safety certificate to keep up to, so in the short term it will be virtually nothing. I'm sure they and the council will have come to some arrangement before the stands fall down.

Maintenance is minimal only if you condemn the ground and let it fall into disrepair. That is NOT preserving the iconic Odsal for the game much, is it? Letting it go to rack and ruin such that nobody could possibly play rugby there?

It is also self-fulfilling - stop the maintenance, it soon becomes not maintenance but major works.