Quite often people run away with their thoughts on this, what they forget is that the council will have to answer to the local taxpayers/population if Odsal/Richard Dunns is ever redeveloped whether it be for Rugby, housing or other.

Too much bull poop is written and then taken as gospel on forums without the required proof, its as if some things suit peoples agendas.....

How does that work in practice then?

You see you'r at it again. Distorting the overall piece I wrote to get across misinformation> I am not Chris Caisley, if so you may be facing a libel letter. All I stated was that no one should blame someone when they aren't privy of the facts. Certainly you are right that PH and MG had questions to answer reference the running of the club? firstly PH and NW (aka the RFL council) did the deed of selling off our historical birthright in the stadium for a derisory figure that left the club still in a perilous position. We the supporters raised £483k to help save our club and Hood stated that the RFL had agreed to advance £300k plus (I forget the figures without going to the file) which I suspect was the figure loaned to Wakefield to help keep them in SL. (again a well documented fact) of course the RFL reneged on that deal also. All the dealings from that fateful first Administration seemed to be orchestrated by the RFL insofar that every deal put onto the table was turned down, because the sale according to the RFL had to be unconditional. Another fact that came out of the admin report at that time was the specially set up company by SL Europe (RFL) called Neonreign Ltd (SIC) who put a derisory bid to the administrator to buy the club. This was accepted as all the other bidders had been turned down,(was that a conflict of interest, I hear you say, or not?) did you know that?? Of course at the 11th Hour a counter bid was accepted from OK for £150k and as that was the best bid in the mix it was accepted? Begin your process of blaming everything on the supporters of our club, and look to the other factors that brought about our demise...thats all I asked in the first letter. I have nothing more to say except that once the online petition against a certain CEO of the RFL finishes and indeed the court case brings further unsavoury situations to light, the meddling of that ruling council and the other SL clubs who were prepared to accept our central distribution cash to the tune of over £50k per club per year for 2 years have a stain on their reputations as well!

woooooo there!

SL(E) is made up of the SL club chairmen, not the RFL. come on who is distorting what here!

Again, I'm not distorting anything. I said, please feel free to quote, that we were to blame, the we being past Bradford chairmen not the fans/supporters.

quote - IT IS ALL OUR* DOING - yak yak yak

*OUR = past owners, directors and fecking idiots - who is what is your own to decipher.

Please note the asterix clarifying OUR. if you decipher fecking idiots to be fans.... so be it


Oh yeah please address your (or chris') libel letter to Bullpower2014 c/o RAB... that'll get you far. Or maybe you could find my email and try that..... give me strength!

You seem to be hell bent on blaming the RFL/Peter Hood, basically anyone but Caisley but he was part of the problem! Remember what Uncle Chris did as a job before a sports agent...... Sports Law.......


But that is all in the past and can not be changed however much we discuss it on here

Bit of an aside here but if SLE is made up of the SL Chairmen how is this affected by clubs going in and out of SL?

They did initially. Hood put in a buy-back clause for the leasehold, for the same price. Successive admins & a liquidation will have seen that clause vanish and also the last possibility of the RFL being forced to sell the lease back also vanished. Fortunately, Ralph has said they’ve produced over 10k documents to prove that the conflict of interest the RFL have, didn’t cause any conflict of interest....

Whilst it's not like me to argue, no. The Head Lease contains a requirement for the Tenant to use the pitch for the playing of first team rugby football until 31 May 2019.

Obviously the RFL bought the headlease and so that is now their obligation. But after May 2019 it will no longer be. They can then do whatever they want subject to normal planning permissions etc. (And of course subject to it being compatible with their obligations to their subtenant. But if there was noi longer any subtenant then there would be nothing standing in the tenant's way after 2019).

Clearly any two parties to any agreement can later agree to vary or remove any terms if they wish, but that's not the point.

I don't know how you've got this idea FA. The 2019 date was to do with the settlement money. If they didn't play almost all home games at Odsal up to that point then they had to repay part of the money they took in 2000 with the deal with the council. That was the reason it was included in the headlease. To be perfectly honest, this was discussed to death at the time but I certainly can't be bothered to go back and look - if the posts still exist on some ghostly server, that is.

Incidentally, as an aside, the 'Odsal settlement' was done between the council and Chris Caisley's board with Bradford Northern (1964) Ltd and that company is long gone so it would be interesting to know how the lease was re-negotiated (I'm assuming it was..) with the new busines(ses) after going under. It's possible they all simply took on the old terms and conditions, but, of course, maybe they didn't?

can you actually read and comprehend what I have written????? I don't think you can. No where have I blamed supporters.... I have stated that any blame should lie with previous Chairmen, your best buddy Chris firmly amongst them. By the way, didn't he, along with Green, blame the supporters for not showing up??????

You can defend Caisley as much as you like, for me he is a major part of our issues that carry on to this day.

What idea? You said

I said


So I just corrected your view that the lease is "worthless" since it can only be used if the rugby ground is there. I just pointed out that the rugby playing requirement is only until 2019, whereas the lease runs till 2154. So maybe not that worthless after 2019?

The deal was done in 2002. The old stadium lease ran till 2019 which is where the relevance of 2019 came from. The new lease from 2002 is for 150 years. The settlement included paying the club £4.6 m in lieu of the previous deal where they would have been receiving £337,000 index linked for 17 years. The connection is thus that if the Bulls stopped playing at Odsal they would be in breach of their lease and could be out. The 2002 Lease was with Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd (not Bradford Northern (1964) Ltd) and unless anyone else knows different it remains the Head Lease although obviously now the head tenants are the RFL (it is normal for long leases to change hands)

As you've rightly pointed out FA, the 2019 date ceased to be about the lease itself as the old lease was superseded by the 150 year 'Settlement' lease. After the settlement, as I said, the date of 2019 was only ever about the money, that's the £4.6m, which you identified. If you don't accept that then we'll just have to differ on it.

Of course, as indeed I pointed out, the RFL's lease is a bargaining chip if the council has any plans for 'other uses'. The lease though, as I understand it, would have no [ipractical[/i use as the RFL would presumably have to keep the rugby ground they leased, or at least would be technically obliged to hand back the ground in the same state as it was when they took out their lease. That would, again presumably, preclude the RFL from building houses on it, say, though I don't think you could lease a house and just knock it down without the landlord's permission, so I'd guess the same would apply. Though again, I suspect your job gives you a bit more knowledge on that than I have.

I am not seeing where you think there's an argument. I only pointed out that the rugby requirement ends with well over a century of lease still remaining. That was all.


No. Under the lease they can do what they like, as long as they comply with planning. Which is kinda my point. (They'd need Council consent but there are only very limited grounds for withholding it.)