Well, the Council are pressing ahead with their plans to build a sports facility at Sedbergh rlCouncil Plansrl

And we have this - "The Council has stated that it has to sell the Richard Dunn site to part-finance the new builds"

Are Richard Dunn & Odsal stadium sites completely separate then? I vaguely remember someone on here stating the the lease covered both sites?

Are the RFL and the Bulls getting in on some of this development action?

Iirc it's the freehold that covers both sites not the lease. Council owns freehold on the combined site but leases odsal portion to rfl. Would imagine if they sell dunns site they will split the freehold at land registry so both sites have separate freehold.

It's a funny one is that.

The stadium pre-dates the the Richard Dunn centre by 30 odd years, so it being on the same freehold, 'parcel', is strange. I can't remember what was on the land now occupied by the Dunn's site but I certainly can't remember any connection with the stadium. Well, other than it all, presumably, being owned by the council, of course, which, sort of suggests that this combination is a relatively new thing?

That does seem odd. Unless they were parcelled up together at some point to ease the development of some previous incarnation of new stadium plans. My guess would be post speedway final talk of Odsal Superdome.

Yeah, strong possibility.

Can someone explain to me in words of one syllable or less what this might mean for the club, if anything?

The Rick Dunn's site will be a void. We could build on it. If there is cash. Then sell the old one. For cash. To pay for the new one. But it is not ours. So who knows?

Nice.

We need to factor in that the council is being squeezed by the government to make cuts in budgets. This is being felt in services all around the city region , and councillors are finding it hard to balance the books on things like social services, for example, so to think any of it is likely to come our way is a tad beyond wishful thinking, imo.

We could get a loan from Provident,

Prior to building Dunn's, most of the land was a Council Highways yard/depot, so presumably council owned for donkeys years.

Same old story.

Big investment companies can get stuff built on a grand scale, despite recesion and all, as their accounts and finance work in a different way. Hene how our own OSv almost came off, although there was a mix of funding going into that.

But Councils used to be able to go in for that sort of thing, and depending on the project maybe the odd one still can. But Bradford is skint and ain't one of them.

My concern is after May 2019 when the rugby covenant ends, the Council and RFL profit from the site. I don't care if they do, mind, but don't feel confident that we would be top of their list to look after. We re likely to be in the lower divisons still and could be shunted off to a Horsfall or other abomination.

Not sure where the idea there is some kind of 'covenant' comes from. 2019 referred only to the Odsal settlement money and not something the council were bound by. The only 'brake' on the council is the lease held by the RFL. Provided the head lease is kept up to date I'd expect the council would be legally bound to honour it, unless there is some legal get out clause, of course.

Under the lease, now held by the RFL, they must play rugby at Odsal until May 2019, or ensure that someone else does.

it's not a case of the Council "being bound by" this - other way round, really - they imposed that requirement.

After that, subject only to planning permission, they can do anything with the site.

The Council as freeholder could of course scrap that requirement if they wanted. But they couldn't extend it, so rugby at Odsal after 2019 is in the hands of RFL.

That's my understanding too, FA and pretty much what I said earlier.
The 'covenant', as it really isn't, is a factor in the 'settlement' agreement and nothing else.