Except the RFL buying the lease out stating that Odsal is an Iconic RL stadium and nothing else so they have backed themselves into a corner and probably a mess here.

Had a good laugh at this until I realised it was a factual statement

Spot on IMO. The council could not let a situation happen where Akbars or whoever ended up in sole control of Odsal without it being primarily a Rugby Stadium. Forget the audit committee they would no doubt end up in court under some form of competition rules.

If the lease were to be transferred back to the club it would be on the proviso that it was a Rugby Stadium otherwise the lease would become null and void allowing the Council to find the most advantageous bidder for the land.

don't have a problem with developers having the lease as long as it's developed with a top class rugby league stadium as part of the developement if it forms part of the rescue plan.

The Council HAS let the situation happen. The Council is an expert at letting situations happen. Our hole in the ground is but a part of the scandal of its shameful portfolio of holes in the ground, though it is the longest running.

You seem to somehow forget the Council's prime responsibility for why we are ultimately here. For many decades, the Council has spurned chance after chance after chance to develop Odsal into a stadium for the 21st century, and they have scandalously and miserably failed time after time.

Yes the short term blame for the insolvency of course lies with the recent boards, but if we had had a competent Council then we would already have had a superb stadium in which to play, an asset to us, the other users, and the city, instead of a massive drain on resources, and very likely we would never have got into this scenario.



The administrator can transfer the lease (ie the Bulls' underlease) to whoever he wants. The terms that are in it are the terms that are in it. People are getting confused with the head lease (Council / RFL) and the underlease. It is the head lease that we hear ABC want back, from the RFL. Again, what provisos and conditions are in it are those that are in it, the Council could not change them.

seems clear that the head lease allows development/ground improvements i.e. we added coral stand under that lease. wonder if underlease only allows use of the ground but not improvement?. If ABC want to make physical modifications to coral stand to make it more useful on non-game days (improving/extending kitchen facilities springs to mind) or want to add a new building (restaurant where old clubhouse is) then that would explain why their getting head lease back is a integral part of any deal, although it doesnt explain their not just clarifying that to the RFL.

obviously there must be something in their plans for Odsal that they know the RFL wouldn't accept, so they can't give the clarification needed

Bradford has been blessed with a spectacularly inept and visionless council for decades, but to suggest it is their responsibility to provide a state of the art stadium for a professional sports club is going a bit far. The only redevelopment plan which stood a realistic chance of coming to fruition was torpedoed by the then government. Yes the council as ultimate owners can certainly help facilitate developement but they have no duty to fund it.

That definitely has a ring of rltruthinessrl to it.

Guessing by Elliott Whiteheads tweets they haven't been paid today as yet.

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree, sometimes blaming the council is an easy way out.

We at Saints blamed the council time after time for stadium plans stalling and falling away, what it took was a man with determination, drive and nouse to make it happen and the council support followed.

I don't think Bradford Council have been turning town viable development opportunities time after time, and this suspicion is not helped by the way the club itself appears to have been run in the past - I'm not sure I trust that those guys were putting together particularly compelling business cases?

All the things I read about Odsal development were always massively ambitious pie in the sky developments, rather than a seemingly rational assessment of what the club needs and how it can reasonably be delivered.

Andy Wilson, under the 'Roughyed' moniker had this say on Set of Six blog

"evening all. been off today, just seen the latest offering from pr company working for bradford administrators. don't trust a word they say anyway, as you've probably gathered, but they're now blatantly playing the race card, or rather gary tasker is, which makes me even more suspicious. it would be great to have bradford's asian community heavily involved in the club, but i'd want to be sure there weren't a few former directors involved too, if you know what i mean - especially given this determination to buy back odsal".

Accusing Tasker of playing the 'race card'?

According to Sky Sports News Brendan Gulifoyle says the ABC Consortium represent "the only hope for a Bulls future"

Been quite a variation in Mick's and Gulifoyle's accounts of what's been happening these past few weeks.

To be fair, they are playing "a" race card. All the reports are about meeting with a group of asian Bradford businessmen, which is a bit odd. It's not like they would say they were meeting with a group of white British businessmen would they? What does that description add? They're a group of businessmen regardless.