Bower must be desperate for clicks! I'm sure the knuckle draggers will lap that narrative up. I must have missed the section about improvements being made by the club since the lease was transferred. Anyway it is concluded, hopefully onwards and upwards.

[quote="Bully_Boxer":1zvx348e]Bower must be desperate for clicks! I'm sure the knuckle draggers will lap that narrative up. I must have missed the section about improvements being made by the club since the lease was transferred. Anyway it is concluded, hopefully onwards and upwards.[/quote:1zvx348e] Definitely shoddy click bait. The lease was concluded last October.

Peddling the RFL agreed spin on how they asset stripped a vulnerable member club.

RL journalism in this country is on its knees. Here is another example of the clickbait nonsense that Total RL/League Express/LRL post on a regular basis. Sounds like a classic case of sour grapes from Bower. Some journalists can’t handle being frozen out, so they flip their stance just to stay relevant. It must be exhausting for him, trying to twist every positive into a negative just to push his anti-club agenda. You can always tell when it’s personal—when even the smallest compliment feels like it's being dragged out of them, like they’d rather swallow nails than admit the club is doing something right.

The RFL technically got the lease for nothing. They essentially took it because they had been down right moronic to lend Hood all that money under the table which he couldn't pay back. So they took the lease, all bad decisions effecting the club can be traced back to the RFL sticky fingers in 2010 and that loan and ultimately the 14 years which have followed.

Yeah should've allowed us to go into admin with the lease included in the assets. We might have attracted a better owner than Omar Khan and everything may have been different. Sliding doors eh?

[quote="Bullseye":1j66os52]Yeah should've allowed us to go into admin with the lease included in the assets. We might have attracted a better owner than Omar Khan and everything may have been different. Sliding doors eh?[/quote:1j66os52]Yeah losing the lease is the reason the RBS stated influenced the decision to remove all overdraft facilities.

[quote="redeverready":2h4ch0mw]Yeah losing the lease is the reason the RBS stated influenced the decision to remove all overdraft facilities.[/quote:2h4ch0mw] As should've been obvious was going to happen - went over the heads of RFL/Hood.

Are all the smaller improvement projects now complete? How are they looking in the flesh? Is anything else on the cards in the way of more ground upgrades?

I think we've bagged all the low hanging fruit. We need to win a trophy this season. After that some more TV exposure might help. In the longer term we really do need to get crowds up. A tall order in the championship.

Does the lease include the land behind the south stand across the road from the cricket club? If redeveloping the existing stadium is too expensive could that land be used to build a new one? AFC Wimbledon built the new Plough lane for £34 million.That's an entire enclosed stadium built in the middle of London. We could start by building stands on one side and one end with termporary buildings on the open side to house media and cameras. The existing offices, catering facilities in the south stand and car parking used on match day. You could even leave the stock car track in use. Then add to the ground over time.

I think the only way we'll see Odsal redeveloped is if a developer is given the green light to build on land around Odsal and as part of that agreement they have to build a new stadium (similar to the old agreement Wakefield had for a new stadium I believe) It sounds like Salford Council have done something similar with Salfords new owner. But the rugby club, clear the debts and you can build on the land around it.

I think there was a plan a few years ago for the whole site, including Richard Dunne. When that was made a heritage site, that messed up a few plans.

We've seen enough plans to fill the Albert Hall. What's always been missing is the funding to do any of it. Can't ever see that changing unless one of us wins very big on the Euromillions.

[quote="Bullseye":e67ahwb8]We've seen enough plans to fill the Albert Hall. What's always been missing is the funding to do any of it. Can't ever see that changing unless one of us wins very big on the Euromillions.[/quote:e67ahwb8] Ahem or my shares in that laotian manganese waste disposal firm come in. I've lumped in the money left from selling my mother's house so I'm banking on it tbh. The care home keep ringing for their money.

[quote="Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza":3p0ezg8g]Does the lease include the land behind the south stand across the road from the cricket club? If redeveloping the existing stadium is too expensive could that land be used to build a new one? AFC Wimbledon built the new Plough lane for £34 million.That's an entire enclosed stadium built in the middle of London. We could start by building stands on one side and one end with termporary buildings on the open side to house media and cameras. The existing offices, catering facilities in the south stand and car parking used on match day. You could even leave the stock car track in use. Then add to the ground over time.[/quote:3p0ezg8g] The ground quality at Odsal makes that near on impossible. The best scenario would be to sell the full Odsal complex and redevelop Horsefall.

[quote="redeverready":2she9154]The ground quality at Odsal makes that near on impossible. The best scenario would be to sell the full Odsal complex and redevelop Horsefall.[/quote:2she9154] I'm no builder or engineer, so are we saying factually building a new stadium isn't possible on the existing land around Odsal? Given some of the feats we see in the building world I find that hard to believe? I don't think the Horsfall option is a bad one, who owns that though? Seems the club have gone all out to get the lease back, which would indicate a desire to remain there? I do hope there are some plans being drafted up in the background and you can see why the club would keep these cards close to their chest, given them amount of egg on faces in the past. The 2 options seem to be: 1. Get into bed with a developer and build a new stadium adjacent 2. Bit part improvement of the current footprint.

Jason Hirst did an interview fairly recently where he talked about the stadium. Can't remember every detail but basically don't expect a purpose built stadium anytime soon. I think gradual improvements is the most likely way forward. Clearly a new stand on the popular terrace would improve the appeal of Odsal massively but the cost of construction at the moment is high - where does that capital come from? The hospitality suite is also looking very run down, it could badly do we external steelwork repainting etc.

Whata do wee need to upgrade? We would we be allowed in SL?

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