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

That's correct it was.
Sky always go 'round the clubs' in the first half of the season, pretty much giving everyone a go, then usually look for the more interesting/better (from their pov) fixtures later on, so it wasn't a great shock, to be honest.

Keep it for another "rainy day" say, when the next SL club goes belly-up sometime next year?

Why should our share of the money go to the next club that falls over?

We never received any money - beyond what we would have received anyway - when WE fell over?

So until someone officially says why no one knows why this money has been paid or who to????

If it's a payment to the RFL for either the lease or say another loan, then I don't see the problem.

Don't think it's been (or being) paid to anyone so far as we know. It is [inext[/i year's money we're talking about, so I guess there's time to maybe get a re-think. Gerry Sutcliffe said it was still being discussed so it [isounds [/istill open.

Strange thing to me is that the RFL haven't made any statement about it, and that may be because they possibly regard it as confidential, between them and the club, I dunno. From this end it was always likely to be regarded as trying to keep it quiet though...

Agree with you on that, just look at Wakefield.

Glover does not own our ground, just a rental/lease agreement but we have invested in roofing for the open terraces (partly because we had to to get the franchise, and partly to encourage more fans to attend).
The result of this investment is higher attendances and therefore more revenue. Don't see why the new owner of Bradford would be considered out of his mind to do the same.

Putting a roof on the Popular side would not be cheap for all sorts of technical and engineering reasons and is not a short term development, but if there is a chance of a full Stadium redevelopment down the road it negates it, that’s the Catch 22 situation the Club has always had!

To be fair the last bit applies equally to Wakefield, unless they've rowed back on the decision to re-build elsewhere. Not even sure if it was the current management who made that decision or the previous lot, to be honest, so maybe they're not as totally wedded to the idea of moving as the previous regime?

For the Bulls, I thought the 'engineering problems' related to the main stand side to be honest, I know that was mentioned when lengthening the playing area was being discussed a couple of seasons back. Have to agree it wouldn't seem to be a sensible way to spend money on the face of it but, so far as I know, there is no scheme 'in the pipeline' or even on the horizon at the minute. If the 'issues' are about foundations (I think it was the stand's foundations at the other side) then I'd guess a simple cover, as against a full blown stand, [imight[/i be a goer. OK certainly did put the idea forward, so we can only assume he's thinking about it, even if he's not had any building surveys done.

Though I can recall being literally frozen to the steps at Thrum Hall during a memorable Boxing Day encounter with our neigbours I am starting to be a bit more appreciative of creature comforts. So It could be we do lose out at the turnstiles if it threatens to persist it down during a game of summer rugby in February!
If this gives enough roi to justify putting a roof on the stand I am nit sure; but I guess it would strengthen any future licence bid and better stadia seem to have improved the gates for other teams, though mainly the ones doing better on the pitch.

Log in and press 'Report Post' on all offending posts. When asked for reason cite 'really weird stalker type ' and they'll send email to the person and give a warning

He's been doing it since April at least so I imagine that's not that effective.

Done that any number of times, albeit slightly differently-worded. And talked to Ross about it. Told them I am sure their advertisers will be well impressed with the reputational damage, as well as the loss of traffic from sensible readers. Who knows if they did anything, cos the things from under the bridge are still there, and I never had any feedback.

Apart from the creature comforts angle, there is also the point that when snow falls it's more likely to cause a postponement due to to being unable to properly clear standing areas more than problems with the pitch. I guess a cover over a decent sized bit of the terraces would possibly almost pay for itself with that aspect alone.