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="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="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?

Not really nik, my first post on the subject suggested if they had took the opportunity to purchase an asset at a bargain price with the intention to leave a legacy for the sports future, they had shown real vision, however, if they have done this to protect an individual club, in the current licencing system, then they are wrong, they have set a precedent that cannot be maintained, and compromised the licence system

Fairly simple,really

I am not from Bradford, and I am not thick. Nor, unlike you, am I deaf to any views that do not accord with my own and nor - unlike you - do I have to resort to calling other people thick, stupid or a liar.

What I AM is correct, it would seem - on this subject of the lease, at least. Which is more than can be said for you.

So the Bulls had a long lease on a stadium, they didn't need to move and nobody could force them to
They sold that lease to the RFL for a cash sum and will pay rent to the RFL, so the RFL is acting as a mortagage provider
Points to me that the Bulls are a bad risk and the RFL is risking central funds on one club's future

It would seem that you were, but also was I, the RFL really are stupid or liers, they stated they had bought a stadium, when as you say they have bought the lease, so they have bought the lease from the Bulls ( that is how I read it ) ?

I infered you were thick because you were refusing to answer simple questions asked of you

Either way, this does suggest that the Bulls do have financial problems, even with paying a peppercorn rent on Odsall, unles I am missing something here