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?