The rent can be cheap, and it can be a good rate of return for the RFL.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

If the RFL got the lease at a knock down price, then they do not need to collect exorbitant rent to get a good rate of return.

Personally I would have preferred repayment in 10 years, but 15 is not terrible. The question is would they get more money from sticking it in the bank.

£1.2 million invested just at 2% would take 27 years to recover at £75,000 per year. At that level it does not look as good an investment in terms of just pure money.

I use 2% as my example because £1.2 million invested at 3% with compound interest would never be beaten.

So as a money investment alone, it's not a good rate of return for the RFL. Given that it stabilized the Bulls enough to keep them bobbling along, then it may have other financial benefits, through keeping other partners on board.

If they had let the Bulls fold and the lease was part of the assets, then anyone could have bought the lease. The Bulls could have had no home and dirt bike racing could now well be on the way at Odsal, with no guarantee that the reformed Bulls would be allowed to play at either Odsal or VP.

The RFL would have been down one team for 3 years and sponsors may have been less likely to invest in a league with teams disappearing left right and centre.

In the end it is probably a good deal for the RFL, but in terms of the lease alone, it's not a financial wonder. It's more a breakeven policy at best with the hope the Bulls may one day buy it back at cost value, meaning the RFL just get profit off the rent paid.

Excuse my ignorance on this matter,but how common is it for an individual to take a sports club into administration and then be permitted to purchase the same sports club a relatively short time later?

Nice to see an individual who has been such a success in the sport take advantage of cronyism and get another good position having left Castleford,who have had a sudden surge in attendances and on-field success since he left.

rlStoryrl

Is it correct that as Marc Green was allegedly owed money he would be aware of what the potential new owners were offering in their bid to purchase the club?

I know Bates bought Chelsea for a pound and with a Trust fund he had in the Cayman Islands he was never fully investigated by the apparent official bodies in the UK.
I take it as you have only shown the image,did he also take Leeds United into admin and out again?
Pleased I am perennially impecunious :there does seem to be a certain something about many with money in this country.

Thank you all for being so generous of spirit that you restrained yourselves from pointing out my total ignorance.
I can only put it down to stress.
Of course this has happened before.Of course the RFL were involved....and Steve Ferres.
Also involved was the 'iconic' Racecourse stadium which had a RFL charge on it.
Long before Dr K had an opinion about the RFL.
Players were complaining.
rlDeja Vu Without A Happy Endingrl