All sounds very admirable BUT lots of conortations for the rest of our sport, so the RFL are paying the lease to the Council???
As for subsidised try the Championship clubs getting nothing from the RFL like the Premier Sports deal - nowt.
Yet they have given you money to pay rent for Odsal or have given somebody money somewhere either way???
To me thats a subsidy at other clubs expense simple as.
Hey I have no wish to see a fellow RL club go out of business but where did all your money go in your heyday, did you ever do owt to help your struggling neighbours like us and Keighley when you put a huge nail almost in our coffins by taking fans away from those towns by poaching them actively doing so too?? Also lots of other clubs have had to almost die to get any kind of help and usually only a small amount from the RFL.
This is a Bradford Bulls problem not the RFLs, short term help yer but not taking on a ground or as you are saying ground lease, look how many RL clubs there are could the RFL afford to pay all of them??
No.

If you are going to pass opinion you should know

1 possibly

2 possibly

But one of them is a definate

3 either the RFL, or the Bradford Bulls, but one of them is a definate

So either the Bulls rent has gone up, or the RFL are bailing them out with money that should be going elsewhere

But surely they have been bailed out.

They’ve been bailed out of losing their ground

Oh the irony, the RFL buy Odsal, what happened to a level playing field?

Good news IMO, imagine Odsal in ten years time with a roof that goes all the way around it - not only would it look pretty epic from above, but it would also keep people from freezing their nads off in the rain!

Explain how we were going to lose our ground, please?

When we held a long lease?

You have a spare 30 million lying around, do you?

If the RFL IS, it is a peppercorn rental - that means something like £1 a year.

Where has anyone said Bulls are being given money to pay rent for Odsal?

As I said a few pages ago, if you weren't gonna lose your ground then the RFL reasons for buying whatever they have bought are false and what other reason was there for their move other than to bail you out?

If you had a lease, you could not be evicted, so why agree to let them sell?

If you had a lease with a guaranteed peppercorn rent, why agree to let them sell?

You really dont get it, do you?

The RFL have stated BBRLFC will be paying the market rate in rent. I would imagine that the market rate for somewhere the size of Odsall is considerably more than £1 a year!

There is nowhere near enough information on this to generate a decent opinion as to whether this is a good deal or not.
The fact that there are a lot of (apparently bitter) fans kicking off that the RFL have done "something" to help another club just shows their cynical mentality.
These are the same people that no doubt complain that the RFL don't do anything to help heartlands clubs. Remember the Crusaders situation from last year when the RFL loaned them money secured against the ground? "The RFL aren't helping out heartland clubs". Now they've done something, it's still an issue.

So, basically some fans are just going to moan no matter what the RFL do. They could cure world hunger, and people would then complain that they didn't dedicate enough time to finding a cure for cancer. I feel sorry for someone that always has an initial reaction of "it's something bad" despite not knowing facts about it. In fact, it's even sadder that they like to make up their own facts to support this negative view!

I had to giggle at the Fax fan that had a pop at Gav for being a "typical SL fan". Says it all about this person's stereotypical approach to the world when anyone that disagrees with him must obviously be a part of the corrupt element or the I'm alright Jack SL brigade. Think that person needs to sit down, take a breather, and then wait for some more information to come out before spouting off about how the RFL is obviously corrupt and this is a bad deal without any facts to back it up!

I'll ask the people that have this "corruption" opinion of the RFL: Why do they think they have done this?

Who agreed to let whom sell?

If Bulls retained the long lease, and sold THAT to the RFL, then everything I have said makes sense. I doubt many people will believe this is anything other than some sort of support arrangement for the club (its hardly rocket science, after all!), but it would be hard to see the downsides for the RFL compared with the likely alternatives.

If, however, it were to transpire that the Bulls had previously surrendered the long lease, and kept quiet about it, then we would be talking a totally different situation.

Some people have stated that the second was indeed the situation. Will someone who has stated this please state how they know this to be fact? Genuine question here.

As would be the operating costs.

The market rent for a stadium like Odsal would have to reflect the extremely high maintenance and related costs compared with smaller or more modern stadia, as well as its usage limitations. So either its a low rent or its a landlord's repairing lease.

Are you saying that, irrespective of who owned Odsal, the Bulls had a cast iron lease on the ‘Iconic’ Stadium?

If the ground had been subject to a predatory approach, surely whoever made the said approach wasn’t some benevolent philanthropist.

Why would an organisation show interest in buying Odsal, other than for developing it, unless of course, they were planning to wait until land values rise, in ninety nine years time?

The RFL have stated that they have purchased Odsal Stadium, can you point out anywhere that anybody has stated that they have purchased a lease?

Anywhere at all?

As incompetant as the RFL are at times, I would not expect them to get it that wrong

Or it is a rent that includes the interest cost incurred by the organisation that has today stated they HAVE PURCHASED ODSALL STADIUM, NOT PURCHASED THE LEASE TO ODSALL STADIUM

Sorry for shouting but it would seem we have a deaf Bulls fan on here tonight

Yes I am. Because they did. And indeed our chairman kept telling us and the world it was tantamount to freehold (which, in substance, a long lease of course is)

So any change of freeholder should have had no effect on our status or security.

And I assumed that the "predatory approach" stuff was largely spin, since as you rightly point out, what would be the benefits of buying a freehold you could do nothing with?

Not that that in any way detracts from what must clearly be a support operation of some kind, nevertheless.

The fly in this particular ointment is if - as some people have been saying, but I have never seen indication of before - the Bulls had previously surrendered the long lease for a cash settlement. Were this indeed to be the case (and it would have had to have happened since the last accounts were signed off late September, since otherwise it would surely have had to be disclosed as a material post balance date non-adjusting event) then we would be talking a very different - and far graver - situation indeed.

So, repeating what I asked above, can anyone put any meat on the bones regarding this contention?

So, Adeybull, you are suggesting 1 of 2 things

Either the RFL are lieing ? ,or the RFL are incompetant ?

So which is it ? , dont forget Nigel is a Bradford lad

You are a fine one to talk, given that you are totally one-eyed regarding Leigh's stadium and refuse ever to listen to the numerous people who try to get you to understand that having access to a decent stadium does not of itself qualify you for a place at the top table. And that the SL Licensing criteria are far wider than just "how good is their stadium?" Deaf? You wrote the book on refusing to listen!

If you buy a house or flat that is actually a long leasehold - as quite a few are - you say you bought the house. Because that is the substance of what you did. You do not say you took over the lease.

Does anyone on here who owns a house subject to a very long leasehold - where they do not own the freehold but pay a ground rent, but otherwise it is effectively their house to do with as they please - say they took over the lease? Or do they say they bought the house or flat?

The RFL can say they have bought the stadium if the club sold them the long lease. Same as the householders in the above examples can and do.

Of course, if - as some have contended - the Bulls had already sold the lease back to the council for a sum, then we are talking something very different. Which is why I have asked for someone to back up that contention, if it were true. And, should it be true, then the club would have some serious explaining to do to its own fans, let alone anyone else's.

Something for everyone to read: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... inner.html The RFL have bought the 150 year lease for a seven figure sum. The lease is still with the Council. Apparently, there were plans from people to buy the ground and move the Bulls out to Valley Parade.

Something for everyone to read: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... inner.html The RFL have bought the 150 year lease for a seven figure sum. The lease is still with the Council. Apparently, there were plans from people to buy the ground and move the Bulls out to Valley Parade.

I am suggesting neither. As I explained above.

You will struggle to find any Bulls fan who thinks Wood is any fan of Bradford. Most believe he is too close to Leeds and Hetherington by far. This is the first time I have EVER heard it suggested he may be in any way partisan in our favour. Indeed, usually it is quite the opposite.

Can you point out where the RFL have stated they have bought a lease?

Anywhere?

I think this is the best post on the topic so far.
People are adapting their favourite conspiracy theory to fit their predjudices by interpreting the few known facts to their own ends.

I've no idea of what the details of the deal are, and so can't form a real opinion, and neither can anyone else on here. Until those details come out, all we're arguing here are our individual predjudices, be they against SL clubs, the Bulls in particular or the RFL as either a whole or just it's leadership.

A totally random idea that DOES come to mind, given the few facts we have, is just hpw popular would Bradford Council be if they made the Bulls homeless to make a few quid? Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the offer was made to the RFL - saving face for the council.
But then again, I have no evidence to support this other than that which I chose to randomly imagine.

I wasnt suggesting he was partisan , I was suggesting he was thick , I suppose you also are from Bradford

By the way, you didnt explain anything, are they lieing, or are they stupid, you are suggesting one or the other, myself on the other hand is suggesting they are telling the truth, and it is you who is either stupid, or lieing

Quote ="Fully"Something for everyone to read: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... inner.html The RFL have bought the 150 year lease for a seven figure sum. The lease is still with the Council. Apparently, there were plans from people to buy the ground and move the Bulls out to Valley Parade.'" Good man for posting that. Even though its The Sun, I suspect its not far off. So: 1 - looks like I was right about the Bulls still retaining the long lease, and that is what they have sold to the RFL. Sorry Starbug and others, but it appears you were wrong. 2 - the "predatory approaches" look like to have been to the BULLS, not to the council, to try and coerce them to surrender the long lease. 3 - looks like I was wrong when I said that the amount the RFL paid for it - paid THE BULLS for it - was likely to be negligible. If the report is to be believed, by more than just a bit! The most likely scenario now I guess is that the price the RFL paid reflects the future income stream from the new lease (as well as maybe the rights to a future RFL stadium in an ideal location). That would effectively mean that that the Bulls receive cash NOW to alleviate the current dire financial situation, a bit like a loan to be repaid in future years. You just hope the financial situation can be improved to facilitate the future payments. So the mists start to clear a bit. It seems quite possible that the RFL might have made a shrewd commercial investment here? That is a win-win for all parties involved?

Quote ="Fully"Something for everyone to read: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... inner.html The RFL have bought the 150 year lease for a seven figure sum. The lease is still with the Council. Apparently, there were plans from people to buy the ground and move the Bulls out to Valley Parade.'" Good man for posting that. Even though its The Sun, I suspect its not far off. So: 1 - looks like I was right about the Bulls still retaining the long lease, and that is what they have sold to the RFL. Sorry Starbug and others, but it appears you were wrong. 2 - the "predatory approaches" look like to have been to the BULLS, not to the council, to try and coerce them to surrender the long lease. 3 - looks like I was wrong when I said that the amount the RFL paid for it - paid THE BULLS for it - was likely to be negligible. If the report is to be believed, by more than just a bit! The most likely scenario now I guess is that the price the RFL paid reflects the future income stream from the new lease (as well as maybe the rights to a future RFL stadium in an ideal location). That would effectively mean that that the Bulls receive cash NOW to alleviate the current dire financial situation, a bit like a loan to be repaid in future years. You just hope the financial situation can be improved to facilitate the future payments. So the mists start to clear a bit. It seems quite possible that the RFL might have made a shrewd commercial investment here? That is a win-win for all parties involved?