I guess key question is what are the benefits of being primary leaseholder?

Upside

from a financial POV figure most often banded about for the rent was 70K. not sure if that is now split between us and the stockcars.

so for a 100k outlay this year (and assuming we are still paying full rent this year and not paying just upto point of sale, in which case the 100k figure is actually reduced by amount we save on rent).

then from next year our outlay will be 32k for five years to pay the extra 160k ( which may actually be covered by the stockcars now paying us rent as primary leaseholder.

after that effectively e don't have any outlay in regard to rent except the £1 peppercorn rent to Bradford council and get paid rental income from the stockcars.

Downside

we become liable for the 190k upkeep costs. Not sure where that figure has come from. part will be business rates(think figure of 100k per annum was bandied about for this)and rest will be maintenance but as I understood it we were already paying the maintenance costs anyway?. I suspect the 190k figure is inflated by RFL to make it look like a better deal for them.

the biggest gain as I see it is we can now make incremental improvements to stadium which we weren't going to do when we jwere ust renting from RFL. I wonder what the business rates are based on? for example would semi-permanently mothballing the roles lane end and reducing the capacity ( guessing we would still be 12k+) both reduce the business rates and improve our IMG score?

Plus the gnashing of teeth and ranting from usual sources is highly entertaining.

I think we also need to get to a point we cease use of the track and pull everything closer to the pitch (and make the pitch bigger!) What's the tie in there?

[quote="Wigan Bull":32i5pjg4] I don't think the Horsfall option is a bad one, who owns that though?.[/quote:32i5pjg4] When this was looked at previously, I think the prevailing opinion was a) far too small, plus there's an athletics track around it b) very limited parking with no potential for more without offending local residents

[quote="paulwalker71":1vdd90ku]When this was looked at previously, I think the prevailing opinion was a) far too small, plus there's an athletics track around it b) very limited parking with no potential for more without offending local residents[/quote:1vdd90ku] I mean take the fields too not just the stadium.

Remember the locals kicking off massively back in 2002 when we had the old plan to build the sports village. Can't remember exactly how it affected Horsfall but they mobilised quickly.

Update from Companies House. Only connection with Odsal lease I suppose is it defines our owners a bit more: Total shares 1458 367 Ordinary shares - Strategic 38 Ltd (25.1%) - possibly Mr P Sharp? 366 Ordinary shares - Nigel Wood (25%) 333 Ordinary shares - Paul Wild (22.8%) 267 Ordinary shares - NIC Services Group (18.3%) 125 Ordinary shares - Varley BB Ltd (8.5%) - Directors Nathan & Daniel Varley