[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9848008.Negotiations_over_Bulls_reach_deadlock/deadlock[/url

[iThe ABC source, said the consortium had offered the governing body £1.5 million for the lease to the ground, which it claims is “open market value” and more than the RFL paid for it earlier this year.

“We’re not asking for anything unreasonable. We want to buy the lease because we won’t want to make any investment in the ground if we don’t own it,” he said.

“We gave the RFL until 5pm on Monday to get back to us, but we have not heard anything. It’s very frustrating.” [/i

Taking these and coulbys comments at face value today am I right in thinking that these dreaded all evil "conditions" that the rfl won't even contemplate (although they have already considered them...) are actualy these;

1) Pay the RFL £1.5m, which includes a tidy profit, for the lease.
2) An agreement that we retain (not get a new one) our licence for this franchise period and be reassed along with everyone else at the next round.


If so I really can't see the problem...which I suspect is the real problem, what are we not being told? What decisions have already been made?

It is very difficult to find anything in Coulby's statement with which you can disagree. What he's asking for is clarity from Red Hall on what is required.
I agree with those who doubt Nigel Wood's effectiveness. To be offered a potential profit on the ground seems like a decent business deal to me , unless the payment terms were too long.
But after watching Superleague Backchat and seeing at first hand the sheer ignorance of some of the media( that sneering Rod Studd was the worst) I doubt there is enough sympathy in the game to save us. For example they were rabbitting on about how right the RL is to keep Odsal yet none of them realised it will probably be unused ,with severe restrictions on change of use and if there is a reformed club, no significant rent available from a club with few resources.
They hadn't a clue regarding the consequences of liquidation.
And these so called experts assumed we would be playing in the Championship when it's clear to me if we are not in SL we should be in C1 with Gateshead, Skolars etc. It was summed up when the hallowed Stevo said "I don't know much about this " --hear hear

Maybe ABC isn't offering what they say they are publically? Or there are strings attached we don't know about? It appears that Coulby is trying to get fans on board to back the ABC bid, which, if all above board, looks fair enough. I'm not keen on negotiating via the media though, you don't get all the facts.

The RFL will have their reasons I'm sure. Trouble is I doubt we'll get to hear them. I have my theories...

I accept not a lot of sympathy for our situation (nor should they be, we've self inflicted many of these wounds!), but you would expect the RFL to be making the right decisions for the game in general, and that surely is to strike the best deal they can so they are not left with a pretty worthless asset and receiving no rent! Pragmatism should rule!

We don't know anything about the £1.5m "offer" though - if they are offering £1.5m straight up in cash, fair enough, if they are offering it over 5, 10 or even 20 years then it becomes much less attractive, and carries more of a risk to the RFL.

Similarly it was made clear at licence time that clubs could have their licences revoked at any time, they can't now give a guarantee that Bradford's is safe when others don't have that same security?

Just what I was thinking. I'd be amazed if the £1.5m was being offered in one lump sum.



I suspect some are safer than others though. If the RFL have doubts about the bidders then they'll be more reluctant to guarantee SL status.

Mirfield bull-- I agree entirely --that's what I would expect of the RFL . But I think the last month has revealed their limitations and perhaps their definition of what is reasonable and pragmatic is different than ours.
I don't think there is any alternative at this late stage for any bidder to going public via the media. If what is presented is a bunch of lies or half truths the League can rebut the statements. And it's not only the League which know the contents of at least the first bid-- it was circulated according to Sadler to ALL the clubs. I doubt that some of the leaders of the other franchises would be backward in coming forward to challenge ABC's claims if they are misleading.
It's over to Mr Solly and Mr Wood.

PS I look forward to seeing Rod Studd interviewing one of the current Bulls players after his comment which implied that because they were being paid they had no right to be worried and his sneering dismissal of their chances of reaching the play-offs.

I agree, but we can only go on what we're told, if the 1.5 is paid in stamps over a 100 years then the rfl is right to reject it. I suspect thats not the case, and rightly or wrongly this is now a matter of public record, if its wholely inaccurate to the actual deal on offer the rfl need to say so.

Licences can be removed at any time, I don't think anyone has a problem with that, I suspect the problem is if that decison has already been made already but not announced. If I was ABC I'd be asking for our current licence to be guarenteed until the next licencing round...INCLUDING the clause about removal at any time. So are we out now? If not we will have a licence until the next round by default (which could be interpretated as "guarenteed") but subject to the same rules as everyone else [uincluding [/uremoval at any time.

This is a pure red herring. I doubt the bidders have even asked , not only for them to keep the ongoing licence, but additionally some weird requirement that it would not be revoked [iunder any circumstances in the future whatever they do[/i. Nobody would ask for that, nobody would grant that, and if such a ridiculous condition had been put, then even from the ROFL, we would have heard about that.

We've been plainly told they just want to know if they are keeping the SL licence. Which would be "sold as seen". They aren't asking for a better, gold-plated one. Plus, how remote are the prospects of the Bulls newco being given the remainder of the licence, and then the new club doing something so bad that it merited revocation being considered, and the ROFL actually getting round to making a decision on it within the current licence period, and the RFL being prepared to summarily execute a member despite the chaos that would cause in SL? Million to one?

Don't watch Backchat anymore for that very reason! So if the offer was circulated to all the clubs, very disappointed in the RFL journalist community that they can't find out what was the conditions which caused a rejection - going to 13 clubs plus the RFL plus ABC plus the administrator means a leak would be very difficult to identify - same lazy journalism as Backchat.
Agree on diffculties on reaching play offs, I think we need to win 4 out of 5 given the other fixtures and how HKR and Hudds play teams around us (including each other!)

Surely Maurice Watkins is now in charge albeit on a temporary basis, certainly could mean the RFL taking a more than tougher stance than of late!