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.

There's got to be something in the pipeline. I don't think we would have brought it for 260k in total, plus £190k a year maintenance costs just for sentimental value.

This might seem stupid but why is putting a roof up on the popular side an issue? Wasn’t there one years ago over that side?

There was a small stand on the pop side for seating IIRC. I expect putting something else there would be easy if built to 1940s building specs. Not sure if the current requirements would mean it's still possible. It needs survey to understand what's possible I guess.

Almost anything is possible in construction - just depends how deep your pockets are. Its a fair old terrace to cover - think Wakefield paid double figure millions for theirs and ours would need to be probably twice that size. Obviously you can VE certain things out of a project but even a basic covered stand would need some serious cash from somewhere.

yup there was ... players and officials walked down to the pitch at the side of the stand. my memory as a kid was peering between the seats held by wooden beams and looking down under the stand at all the cig ends and garbage that was thrown from under the seats. fire hazzard? lol

That made me shudder given it was the same sort of accumulation at VP that contributed to that horror.

I get that it was a fire hazard and I’m not suggesting that we rebuild the stand like it was. But a roof surely wouldn't cost a massive amount. I mean it’s not like we’re building a brand new stand?

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/ ... ease-soon/

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/ ... ease-soon/

I did some fire training over here in Aus last week and the VP fire was used as part of that training and the lessons we can all take from it!

I find the current state of affairs a bit baffling all round really. How are we signing such quality these days? What have we planned for Odsal? Does the club know something interesting we don't (league getting bigger?). I can't cope with boom and bust again. No more false dawns!

As Greg said on the other thread, I can't see SL clubs voting to increase the size of the comp to 14 teams. It'd mean even less money to go around. I can't see how we're breaking even unless some of the new directors are prepared to lose money. You certainly don't get involved in RL to make money.

My guess is that the directors believe we have a chance of getting a high enough IMG grade to get into SL over the next few years. A lot depends on the on field performance and getting various upgrades to the ground. The ground itself has been cited by many former owners as a significant cost. Whether having the lease makes maintenance and upgrades easier I don't know. It didn't stop us going into admin in 2012 and we had SL crowds and income back then.

I'm at the stage now where I'm not worrying too much about the off field stuff and just trying to enjoy the rugby - and that has improved a fair bit in the last year or so.

I thought the rumour was that the 14 club SL would include two French sides who wouldn't take a share of the funding? Whatever the plan is, the loop fixtures are a joke so that cannot be a permanent solution.

To be honest I'm fairly neutral about SL. The Championship is a great competition and we generally win more than we lose. If went into SL it would take many years and a lot of money to get to a similar position. What I would love to see more than anything is some stadium improvements. The current situation with the pitch cannot be a long term situation.