The vote to split the Bulls TV money was 8:5. Wigan, Warrington & Leeds were 3 of the 5 who voted against.

The deal was clandestine with Council members only being informed after it had gone through.

Most sport governing bodies do not see themselves as having a property development / land buying role. Particularly making purchases that benefit some clubs and not others.

If the RFL exec want to support their preferred clubs it has a lot 'to do' with other SL clubs. The rules have been set to give the RFL executive a high degree of freedom. Several clubs take the view that Nigel and his gang have abused this freedom and this is why some SL clubs want better checks and balances atm.

Your going to make me split your post up again aren't you?



And? If my company looked to make an acquisition, I doubt I would be consulted, it's not my job. Again, the rfl doesn't need to ask everyone in the world before doing anything - there are people on other threads trying to get the rfl to give LESS control to the clubs and not let them have a say in a great deal more things like the sponsorship deal.



This is wrong. This is so painfully wrong. Every governing body in the world will have long term financial goals and investment strategies, from forex markets to property to commodities. Land is a good investment at the moment, prices are bubbling, so if a buyer comes in to save Bradford, the lease can be sold back at a profit, and long term, land (and in particular British land) has become a store of value, replacing gold. The rfl having an investment strategy should be applauded - even if it has been brought about by club stupidity - I would hope there's someone at the rfl, monitoring the positions of lots of teams who own grounds (particularly lower league football, as well as rugby league clubs) in case similar situations occur.



Again with the unsupported call of favouritism ... Really? You know Nigel wood is a Halifax fan right? That would hardly make bradford a favoured club! Clubs want better checks and balances because some clubs like to take the stupid route, and it damages everyone in the sport - I don't think you'd find any link to any club owner screaming wood out (posters on here maybe)

The other way of looking at it is the RFL, as governing body, took advantage of a distressed member club to acquire an asset at a reduced price. Legally fine, but ethically fine?

That's a whole other debate! Was the price ever actually released? I think what makes me not question it was the fact that everything I have read suggests Bradford made the initial approach, so there's no real way anyone can argue any sort of vulture tactics, at least imo - this is the problem with arguing when no one has the full details.

With or without bradford existing as a club, odsal would be a prudent purchase (so long as it was agreed with Bradford council what would happen to the land if Bradford ceased to exist)

Ethically - is it any worse than tescos buying Central Park?

I've posted the alternative view, on another thread recently. Hold on.

So what we seemed to have learned is that Bradford got a ‘sweetheart deal’ that cut 50% of their tv income, but also undervalued their asset when the RFL bought the lease in a unique deal that they have also done for some lower league clubs.

This deal was done in a clandestine fashion that the clubs weren’t aware of, and has forced the clubs to ask for more checks an balances on the RFL powers, so after the abuse of powers in buying these leases which sit on the RFL’s balance sheets and was secretly released in RFL reports and clandestine official statements to the media The SL Clubs have responded by demanding more power in marketing and commercial operations. Because that will of course stop the RFL buying leases from its member clubs, without its member clubs knowing. and voting for it. and agreeing as a collective to run said clubs together if necessary, though they aren’t aware of this.

Interesting…………

"FearTheVee wroteicon_biggrin.gifo you really believe that transaction wasn't principally about getting cash into the Bulls?"


Yes. That transaction was to redeem the secret £700k unsecured loan which the RFL had foolishly advanced Bradford 4months previously.

The RFL then bricked themselves when they realised the exposure & needed some good "spin" on it when it leaked so offered to buy the Odsal lease(as the council still own the freehold).

They then wrote off the loan and took the only asset of value Bradford had.
6 months later the administrator offered creditors SFA. I've always wondered why he didn't look at the RFL deal which effectively made them preferred creditors to the detriment of the taxpayers & everyone else.

Bottom line, the RFL £700k intervention got Bradford into that season and no more. Then all the rubbish about "competition integrity" kicked in.
Bradford lost their main asset.
Bradford built up another 8months of debt, thereby ensuring administration
Bradford went to the fans, and used up all that goodwill.

If the RFL had said no, Bradford would have entered administration in the preseason. With less debt, still holding an asset (so more attractive to investors - maybe a better quality of investor), and still able call on the fans goodwill.

That RFL intervention screwed us completely. Our directors must have made a compelling case. I don't know who to blame more for it. The directors who sold it to the RFL, or the RFL who bought it....

The RFL could sell the tenancy to Saints, we could then recoup the rent from Bradford or who ever. The RFL in a way are the lender of last resort. It's not really about 'favorite' clubs, it's about a certain number of clubs having to use that lender of last resort.

I'm sure if Salford had not found a Koukash, then they too would have been needing a lender of last resort. As it was Salford were lucky that Koukash just happened to live on their doorstep and could not get in at his home town club.

Bradford I think do suffer being next to Leeds. They are both big cities, but in terms of money and wealth, I think Leeds attract this in greater quantities in all area's of life. Living where I do, it is very noticable that traffic flows tend to be into Leeds in the morning and out of it at night. Bradford I think over time will become more of a commuting area for the power house of Leeds. That will only be reflected in the money available to things like sporting clubs.

Hudderfield have great pockets in their backer, but I am sure if the situation was reversed and they where in Bradford shoes, then the RFL would step in to help. As it is their money man covers this gap, if he ever chooses to stop then we will see if Huddersfield are treated any differently.

But I've not seen a club in difficulty where they have accused the RFL of not offering assistance where possible.

The buying of the lease for me is a non-issue. My bigger concern was the initial loan. That was not secured against anything, it was only when collapse was imminent that the correct action was taken to get something solid in return for the loan.

If the RFL did that again, I would be concerned. If they get an asset or some guarantee of a return then I have no problem with them lending millions. If they lend with only a hope of a return then I would be concerned.

So if it was Saints needing a lender of last resort. I would expect them to want some share in something tangible, (like a percentage of our stadia or the right to host internationals free of charge till the debt is repaid etc.)

Also of note was the offer from SuperLeague (Europe), with the RFL's blessing, to buy Bradford from the administrator 18months ago.

Ultimately the administrator thought OK offered creditors a better deal.....

Oh dear you do appear confused.

1. The RFL is a governing body with a membership not a private company that chooses not to consult staff on an acquisition.

2. there is a difference between 'asking everyone in the world' and consulting the governing council when an executive is making a decision that benefits some members while putting others at a disadvantage.

3. I wrote "Most sport governing bodies do not see themselves as having a property development / land buying role. Particularly making purchases that benefit some clubs and not others." Do share with us the sports Governing bodies that buy land for general development AND in particular name perhaps 2 or 3 governing bodies that have bought land that improves the competitiveness of one senior club over others - I must have missed this happening.

4. I said preferred not favouritism. It would also appear that for you it is only possible to prefer that club supported through life, not so. And I am pretty sure I have seen a member of the Wood family in a Bulls shirt if such things do matter to you. Bulls have had a far better deal than many SL clubs from the RFL. I do not think that is the RFLs role.

5.I doubt that many owners will be screaming Wood out. There may come a day when some owners seek to call a halt to the behaviour of the executive.....oh wait a minute!

dont forget odsal is an iconic stadium which had to be saved

Ah. The RFL cover story rears its head again.

Edited for accuracy.

So you see it as prefered, some bradford fans see it as screwing them over for a cheap bid on the lease, taking the TV monies and making them unattractive to new investors.

If this was a referee's performance then I'd say he must have got it right as both sides seem to think they got a rough end of the deal.

If your not pleasing anyone you must have been impartial.

Well that’s not the line we were fed when the proverbial hit the fan.

Whilst still bemused at the RFL loaning money to Bradford on the quiet, we were told the reason for the lease acquisition was to stop unscrupulous land grab companies getting their grubby hands on the Icon that is Odsal.

All this guff about the RFL having a smart investment strategy, or even taking advantage of a struggling club .

The RFL just tried to save the day, no agenda, but as usual, not professionally savvy enough.