I think a move to VP could be accepted by most if it didn't mean cutting the squad to the bone. There are several players whose deals are up this year but if we retained the best of the home grown ones that may be bearable, but would leave us very weak up front without Manuakafoa/Hargreaves/Elima.

Losing our best young players as well as our better seasoned pros and moving to VP would ony mean us being in this situation again very soon.

the only problem with that , is our season tickets are sold in oct/nov time whereas most clubs have done there shopping in july and august when the anti tamper deadline ends. so unless they were a) sold early or b) sold with the fans made aware the money raised would be affective from the 2nd season following, if you know what i mean, the ticket sales wouldnt reflect that years budget . Another problem is the player pool, 500 professional footballers were released into the pool this year at the end of their contracts, if you consider the make up of rugby league and the lack of under contract signings then even if you say 5 out of contract players per club then we'd still only have 55 players to chose from of whom maybe ten to fifteen would be any good

I said it looked like the sensible option financially, not one that would enable us win the league!

yeah i agree, it is good financial sense and i wasnt knocking the idea , i was just trying to say that the mechanics of rugby league would make it an hard to implement strategy

Not really sure what 'persuasive and believable' figures have to do with it to be honest. Especially when you're talking about the great majority.

For sure, no-one likes to think they've been shat on, but everyone, irrespective of their POV on how we got here or who was to blame, must have worked out that we're currently miles from where we want to be and no-one in the engine room seems to be able to locate a paddle? What's more I'd guess it would be the less hard core, who maybe haven't followed all the ups and downs as assiduously as some others, who would probably be more accepting. They (we) will moan. You can bet your bloody life on that, but ultimately, all most people want is a club to support. Answers to questions would be very nice, but for Mr. Average it isn't at the core, imo.

Personally, I have absolutely no wish to go to VP, but if it was the only way to allow the club to move on then I'll accept it, very reluctantly, but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. And, when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter a jot who tells me it is necessary, Caisley, Coulby, Hood or Uncle Tom Cobley, cos I've no way of knowing one way or the other whether it's true or if they're lying through their teeth. That though has been the situation since 1863 when you think about it.

I'd feel more at ease if it was Uncle Tom Cobley at the helm, truth be told...

Now you mention it.........

So why would a move to vp be better financiall?

Would the rent of the stadium at vp be cheaper than at odsal?

Are we we still lumbered with the up keep of odsal?

Dose the pitch size at vp matter?

Would the RFL allow this to happen (bearing in mind they have helped us out quite a bit over the years) ?

Would bar income and such like be greatly reduced if we moved to vp?

Would imagine thats the key point and its unclear to say the least. Has been reported both ways since lease sale i.e RFL pays maintenance costs and we pay commercial rent (which is a decent deal for us) OR We pay maintenance costs and pay a commercial rent ( which makes us worse off than under the old lease). One version I've heard is that we are responsible for the maintenance in terms of arranging it and the RFL actually pay the bill, which could explain some of the confusion around the matter.

Would imagine commercial rent for VP and Odsal are broadly similar tbh.

It's pretty impossible to say without any of the 'facts', I guess.

Going back to the forum, PH said that nothing had changed other than the that we were now paying the RFL rather than the council and IIRC that was in answer to a question on whether the club was still responsible for ground upkeep. Maybe someone who took more comprehensive notes than my mental variety could come back on that?

Again, from memory, the club was still spinning the line about "protecting Odsal from predators" as being the reason for the sale so maybe other things were also being 'spun'. They certainly didn't mention running costs directly, neither did they mention the VAT due because the sale.

VP is a much more modern ground than Odsal so I'd expect its value for rental would be higher, to be honest. Having said that, if we believe what has been said on here by people who seem to know, it is City who would be our landlord, not the Gibb pension fund, so maybe they be happy with a different figure, dunno to be honest. I guess though that City would find any reasonable amount to be a boost to their own difficult financial situation.

I certainly can't imagine what the RFL reaction would be to us leaving them with a turkey; they definitely won't be jumping up and down shouting whoopee, and that is a fact.

Bradford City Pay c£750,000 pa to rent Valley parade. NOt sure if that figure includes the amount paid just for the ground, or that was the figure when the offices were being rented too, but thats a top end figure.

If the RFL have taken on our lease, they will be paying a peppercorn rent of about £1 per annum for Odsal. Imagine the delight at redhall if the Bulls move out and they get the council to agree to let them sell it!

Pretty certain you cant sell land you leasing. any money from the sale would go to council not RFL. be like you renting a house and selling it

If we were to move out it would, presumably, leave the RFL with the upkeep, though if it wasn't being used it wouldn't be onerous, presumably. Where did the £1 come from btw, I know we weren't paying a 'commercial' rent but no-one said it was just £1? I think "peppercorn" was the usual euphemism, but that doesn't have any real definition, other than not a commercial rate, presumably.

I think when trying to evaluate the value of Odsal for other uses it has to remembered that there are issues with 'toxic' elements having been tipped there over the years. I think it has to be assumed that there is a cost involved in removing the danger from this stuff.

You can generally cap off contaminated land to build on it. I just can't see any demand for the site in the current climate except waste dump, incinerator or another supermarket.