If it is that easy why were the Bulls in a mess?

Not following you. Bulls were never in a position to rent out the ground and make a profit on it compared to the cost of the lease.

The Bulls should have rented it to themselves, they could have got some decent rent in then.

It's a point of view.

Oh dear!

Profit is income exceeding costs, not rocket science admittedly. Unless the RFL are significantly increasing Bradford's rent they must be inheriting a loss making business where there is no profit, otherwise why would Bradford want to assign? There must be opportunities for the RFL to save money/make money on running Odsal longer term but the bit I was questioning was the statement it will not take them long, whcih I am still not clear on.

Nah, Adey, first thing you've not got [iquite [/iright. You see, it's his therapists job, so he has to [ipretend[/i he can see some potential, however, just like the rest of us he also wishes Fax4 would just jog on and stop bothering him..........

This is part of something I posted on the VT, and it very much reflects some of the chat last night:

The "predatory" comment comes from these prospective buyers knowing that the Bulls are struggling for income right now, and are at a considerable disadvantage compared with most of their peers in having no wealthy or corporate owner to either bankroll them or to give them a fallback to deal with unforeseen costs. It is this lack of any fallback cushion, more than the lack of a day-to-day hand-in-pocket sugar daddy, that has been most dangerous for the club. The day to day constraints they can handle, and have been handling; an (another...) unexpected financial shock they could not. Therefore, the club's continuing occupancy at Odsal was becoming increasingly risky, since it is the stadium from which most of the opportunities for such an unexpected shock seemed likely to eventuate. The predators seemed very well aware of this, so clearly felt in a strong position in their discussions.

The RFL deal provides the club now with the financial cushion they have so significantly lacked in recent years, and removes any necessity to move out of Odsal on adverse terms. So the club's management can plan for the future with far more confidence. Other clubs have either their rich owner or their own stadium assets to provide such a cushion, or do not face the scale of exposures that the Bulls do. the Bulls' situation was pretty unique, and a unique solution has been found to it. It is quite clear to me that the management are very relieved that they have now put in place a situation where the club can handle a big unexpected financial shock. before, it could not - and the directors therefore had a responsibility to adjust and scale the club's activities accordingly, which was looking like having to leave Odsal and its scope for providing unexpected shocks behind.


It was also clear from the discussions that the transfer to the RFL is NOT the sort of zero-sum costs scenario that would make you wonder how it could be a win-win. The Bulls hled an asset from which they could not realise value. The RFL has access to external financing and funding, to cover both capital and revenue expenditure, that the Bulls do not - or may have only at penal cost. Put the two together, and you can realise value from an asset AND generate additional external funding (probably for future development) that was not there before. So its 2+2=10 not 2+2=4, if I understand it right. Also, the new arrangement allows costs (for the Bulls) to be evened out and be predictable.

Incidentally: Bulls continue to run Odsal, not the RFL. The deal is a financial one - sale and leaseback, effectively - that gives also gives the RFL rights and opportnities regarding future development.

My suspicion is drawn from the reports which speak of being safe from "predators".

As you know, the lease belonged to the club and only the board/shareholders could sign it away, but in a situation where the largest shareholder is, to some extent 'estranged' from the club, my gut feeling is that the board may have felt there was a possibility that people who didn't have the club's best interests at heart [icould[/i have bought into the club and then used their position to bring in the wrong kind of developments. Ones designed, more with profits in mind than what would be the most beneficial for the rugby club, shall we say.

Obviously I don't have any knowledge, and it may be totally wide of the mark, but why mention predators if it had no relevance, particularly when PH has said (and to be honest I believe him) that there was no financial imperative?

PS written before I read Adey's post above. I won't edit it though.

What you're asking comes back to the questions I put up earlier really. It will depend on how much the rent is compared to the lease, who is paying the upkeep, who has the franchise rights (or if they are split) and how clever the RFL are in using Odsal for other events. Answers to these will affect how quickly the RFL realise back their investment. Also I've assumed the reported 7 figure sum is more like £1m than £9m, if its not then that obviously changes things.

Should have put the bit about not taking long to realise a profit at the end really. Wasn't just including the rent, although given they've said its "market" rent and we were paying a peppercorn lease, you'd think the profit margin would be pretty good on the rent alone.

Thanks Adey, you are at strong risk of being the world's first decent Tory. If the RFL had to secure external funding why has there been no other third party willing to come in & invest (or were there only 'predators' willing to do this in this market?) &/or why couldn't the BUlls raise that finance, risk I presume?

That's another part of the conundrum I have been musing over. I have never joined in the sniping at the RFL but, as with the Bulls, I would guess they are in this game for the love as much as the money (Lewis aside, who came from tennis but I think has done a fantastic job generally) & are not neccessarily the most cut-throat of businessmen, so why should they be able to market Odsal any better than the businessmen who run the Bulls, excluding the RFL being able to utilise Odsal for other RL games?

Its actually these potential other games or other uses of the facilities that I mean. Normal SL and CC matches are down to the Bulls (with us hopefully benefitting from the franchises for those games). See if Adey has anything to say about my previous post, may clear things up abit.

At the end of the day, I'm sat at home off work idly speculating!