A mutual break clause is positive. The club is going to work within budgetary constraints. I want that, rather than the "Madness" of trying to get into SL at any cost.

Being prudent over the next Two years gives the club a better understanding of where the club is realistically and the expectations of fans will have form. Which go together.

I also gives Bradford Council time to consider there strategy's going forward. As far as the RFL owning the lease is concerned. Is a weight they must know is unsustainable.

Should be interesting to see what happens in the next few years (hopefully we’ll last long enough to see it).

What we need is for club, RFL, Council and someone who wants to develop the site to come together to work out a mutually beneficial solution. The break in the lease should enable that. Ideally the Odsal site is sold for redevelopment and the money used to demolish the Richard Dunn centre and build Leigh Sports Village type stadium with a modern pool/sports centre attached on the same site. The Council get a new sports centre to replace the loss making Richard Dunn centre, the club gets a new home. RFL get some new offices in new stadium maybe. A developer gets a site near some great transport links. Probably money left over too to go into the Council coffers.

I can see someone flying halfway around the world to get a slice of that action – on the proviso they keep the club on the straight and narrow for three years (e.g. as long as stipulated in the RFL criteria for new owners).

Yes off course. I would back that. I moved 170 miles away a few months ago but driving up the M6 saw a sign for Leigh. Well I never paid attention before but it shows what a successful/Modern sports club can do for City/Town. Its early days and we will have to see what number of supporters are going to attend RL in the City and elsewhere. The last regimes were rubbish at selling the RL product. Bullseye that would be an easy sell.

Until 31 May 2019 the tenant has to use the playing surface for first team rugby football.

The RFL would be in breach of that, as they don't do any such thing. Their subtenants may do but the RFL don't. So the Council must have consented to a sublease which contained the same proviso (at least).

After the cutoff date, however, the RFL (subject to the rights of occupation of their tenants), and the Bulls (subject to the terms of their sub-lease) can do whatever they want on the land as long as they have planning permission.

I can't remember who'd be responsible for the grant or not of planning permission. Oh, hang on ...

The main Lease runs till 8 Oct 2152, so maybe another 50 - 75 administrations/liquidations going forward.

Well, yes, in a way.
Though the lease was for [I think 150 years] when the deal was done, and it was for a rugby ground. At the end of the day, it was the council who put the covenant on the ground and it's the council who can override it - though so long as the RFL continue to pay the lease I guess they could overrule any decision to use it for other purposes.

The thing about the lease though, is that it put the Bulls [then Caisley's Bulls] in charge of maintenance and renovation. My understanding of the club's powers was that they could sanction anything they wanted [subject to planning etc] in order to maintain the rugby club. Remember Odsal is a very large site and there is plenty of room for [say]retail without it impinging, in any way, on the stadium. That scenario is a far cry from selling it off and moving out.

As I said earlier though, there have been so many changes in companies and then the selling of the lease, so it's impossible to say just what the current lease lays down. Other than the club is still responsible to pay for maintenance and the need for some kind of financial input is just as necessary now as it was then.

Are you confusing lease and sublease?

Don't think anyone has put up a copy of the new Bulls' sublease, so we only have the few sketchy details from reports (and the rumours that we have a 3 year rent holiday etc) but the original lease (which is currently held by RFL) remains just the same as ever it was.

Or they could do what they want & hope the Council don't notice? Which technically is not a breach.....

Which, along with the fact that the club were still responsible for all 'upkeep', is what Peter Hood confirmed to a fans forum, quite a few years back.

I've no actual reason to think anything has changed, though I thought it was certainly[i a possibility[/i that something might have changed in all the comings and goings.

The point is something may well have changed, if the rumours are true that the RFL have given us a 3 year rent holiday, and they are paying maintenance for the same period. That would be worth an awful lot of money and more than set-off the reduced distribution. (But the change would be the arrangements between lessee (RFL) and sub-lessee (us) and not affecting the Head Lease.

RFL's pets.

Spot on, yes. It would be interesting to know to what level they are going to 'do maintenance' - as, when it was the council's responsibility, it meant that if the RFL changed the ground rules [like, to say for instance, that all grounds must have two stands] then it would have been down to the council to put up the necessary money to comply with that. Not that I can see anything like that happening today!

If it's a case of, "well, the painting can wait until next year"[or the year after] it will cost considerably less. I'd guess it will be purely essential safety work that's not covered on the insurance.

Surely maintenance and upkeep is the responsiblty of the primary lessee...

What's stopping them passing it on in the sub-lease? In theory it just affects the rent.

Not now.
It was the responsibility of the primary lessee when we were that, but when we sold the lease we kept the responsibility.
Apparently the RFL are taking it on for 3 seasons, as well as reducing the rent,but it comes back to us, as under the original terms after that. 6