They still wouldn't own the ground if they bought back the primary lease though, it would still belong to the freeholder, ie Bradford Met. I assume OK Bulls have the same lease (from the RFL) as the old management did, and at the last Forum PH said (IIRC) it was the same terms as they'd had from the council (basically 150 years, when taken out originally and the club responsible for upkeep). If what he said was true, the principle benefit to be gained by buying back the primary lease is not having to pay rent to the RFL, as they would already have security of tenure.

There is a difference in what is being paid though. The RFL are making a profit on the lease of the ground. They have the peppercorn rent we used to pay to the council versus "market rate" that they are charging us.

If we went back to leasing direct from the council that would in long term save us money - depends what the market rate is really as to how important it would be to get back to those terms.

That's true enough, though I've no idea if the RFL's deal with the council is on the same terms as we had from the settlement. I suspect they would have had the opportunity to amend things if they wished.

I agree that the destination of the withheld funds should be revealed-- it's not only Bulls fans that should be interested. If it is to be shared between the other 13 clubs that would be less than 50K each. I could think of a number of other uses that would be of more benefit to the game--e.g. youth development, player welfare, more support for Championship clubs. Using the funds for a wider purpose would at least rebut the charge that other clubs have agreed only from self interest
Perhaps a journalist will ask the League and save you the trouble. There again perhaps not.....

It does make you wonder what Sky's view of this is. Fair enough, they are paying to show SL on TV and they shouldn't really influence how the game is run but they probably won't be pleased that the RFL are actively using the cash to promote an uneven competition.

Suppose, on the basis that the RFL clearly thinks half the money is sufficient to run a team in SL, that, in the absence of any other bidder, they cut the amount paid by half? Take it or leave it?

I think if Bulls are only getting half the Sky money, they would be entitled to tell Sky they will only sanction half the games Sky were going to televise of us - the away games...? Since the club is being denied the benefit of Sky money but is still hurt by lower attendances at televised home games.

Assuming that Sky will even want to televise games involving such a hamstrung club...?

Incidentally, any of the hardy few who still bother to read the "comments" on the appallingly-badly (un) moderated T&A site will know that there is a troll on there, seemingly with mental health issues, that keeps pretending to be other posters. Its latest activity is to copy posts of mine off here verbatim under its own login. If anyone knows it, can they try and persuade it to go and seek the help it so obviously needs?

Do you have a wannabe stalker?

No reason to think Sky will even consider it imo, to be fair to them they pay for games and they pick and choose as they wish. No doubt we'll get a couple in the first half of the season and then it will depend on where we are in the league and, even more importantly, who the opposition is.

It would be a bit of a bummer if we lost out due to playing Wigan at home just as they are, say, needing one more win to secure the hub cap, but it would be just our luck.

I very much doubt it. Sky's contract is with the collective entity known as SLE. They will have agreed to pay £Xm to televise X number of games of their choice. How SLE then distributes that income among its shareholders is outwith that contract and is a matter for SLE itself.

BTW, does anybody yet know if this reduction in monies was forced or voluntary as I have seen contradictory statements on the matter. Some people seem to think it was imposed as a form of punishment, yet others (including League Express) seem to think it was a voluntary measure by the new owners as an act of good faith.

Ours will be a story Sky will want to cover next season so I expect they will insist on televising home games especially at the beginning of the season. Backs against the wall, rising like a phoenix, less resources than all other teams-- lots of good storylines for them
I think despite all the bad news and negative comments about Rugby League the game has a golden opportunity next year. Sky will be smarting at losing the Rah Rah rights and they've shown in the past they are sore losers. I expect their publicity ,coverage and promotion of League will expand. When Sky have lost rights before they have given that sport or league minimal exposure on their sports programmes. I would not be surprised if they outbid Premier for the rights to NRL and Championship next year.

PS To Derwent-- I've posted the Express view on one of the threads but there is some confusion and some take the view it was imposed. For example Adey posted "it's news to Sutcliffe and Khan".
If I can get to the forum next Tuesday (some doubt as I have to work in London that day) I intend to ask.

I'm not sure whether this will be the case. I think it depends on what calibre games against the old rivals are in prospect. I don't remember them queing up for Wakey or Widnes games.

I WAS being somewhat tongue in cheek there! Since its the RFL anyway deciding who gets what Sky money and not Sky. But not entirely tongue in cheek, since it would be an interesting argument to try out on the RFL. Or, maybe, for those of us who subscribe to Sky Sports only for the RL, to try out on Sky...

I think you'll find that Wakefield vs Bulls [iwas[/i on Sky earlier in the season