This still compromises the RFL with regards the Bulls SL licence, if their licence was revoked it is highly unlikely they could continue to pay the rental agreed , not a healthy situation

To be honest, Adey, while you've been nothing but reasonable on this thread, this final summary seems to make clear that what's happened here is that the RFL have found a way to bung Bradford £1m+. They felt they couldn't just hand out £1m as a special dispensation because Bradford are in financial stick - we've already seen just how open-minded and sport-before-club many RL fans are - as this would cause havoc with other clubs looking for their own handout. So they had to disguise the money as a financial transaction - hence the sale of the leasehold. As you've pointed out, the lease actually had fairly small market value unless you were going to bulldoze Odsal and kick out the RL team, so Bradford couldn't have obtained any cash selling it to anyone other than the RFL. Which means that the RFL could have named their price. I suspect that price was pretty close to whatever sum Bradford needed to avoid going to the wall within a matter of weeks. I suspect that the term "market rate" for rent also hides a fair bit of sophistry. After all, if Bradford are the guaranteed sub-tenants, and thus the only people who can pay the rent, and their rent has been £1 a year, then the "market rate" for Bradford at Odsal is, er, £1 a year. I wouldn't be enormously surprised to discover that the market rate will rise, but not by as much as the maintenance costs Bradford used to pay as leadeholders, which the RFL will now pay. So Bradfod's running costs will decline, while the RFL, as well as putting out a large amount of capital, will also take on some running costs for the ground too.

I'm not coming at this from the angle of those who are already rending shirts and tearing hair. I think the governing body should do all it can to ensure the survival of all clubs, and Bradford is - like it or not - a more important club than most simply because of its size and fanbase. However, it does seem very clearly to be a bung designed at short-notice to alleviate some sort of pressing financial problem at Bradford. The guff about historic stadium and possible future development is just a smokescreen. Unfortunately, it's a smokescreen which I think will cause more trouble than if the RFL had simply come out honestly and said that it was either a bung to Bradford, or no more Bradford. People will big up some huge Nigel Wood-sized conspiracy, rather than having to face up to the grim reality that it was either this, or one of our biggest clubs disappeared. I'd rather have had the reality dose of the latter.

This is, of course, all speculation. But the way in which the deal has been done suggests crisis to me. I'm sure the details will come out son : RL is a very small, and very gossipy, world.

SL just keeps getting better and better, eh Roy

Roy, of course it is providing financial support to Bradford! You are surely right there, and in much of what you conclude, and I have said or implied as much in various posts. There could be no other sensible reason for it. It sort of walks and talks like a loan to me, regardless of its legal form.

That is why I have been at pains to point out that this hardly sets a precedent, given past interventions to support clubs with financial problems.

And maybe those who have doubted me when I said the Bulls' financial position had to be dire might doubt me a bit less now? You can see the code for this quite clearly (IMO) in Peter Hood's comments, I think?

I DO suspect there is something in the future development possibility idea - not least because Odsal is pretty well placed geographically, central for the RL heartlands and right on the M62 corridor. I doubt its all spin, but I also agree with you - and indeed the Sun report's implication - that it is highly unlikely to be the main driver.

I note Starbug is not man enough to apologise, but maybe I hope for too much?

How many times have I been asked to supply a ' link '? , well until this more enlightening article appeared I like everybody else was going off what the governing body had told us, it would seem they were being less than truthful, again

So yes I like everbody else with the information to hand was wrong, but it is no less a problem, in fact it is worse in some ways, has the Bradford management basically blackmailed the governing body into a loan/gift? ," lend us a million, or youll be a team short by May? "

One thing this does mean is that Bradford Bulls will be the first team confirmed at every round of franchising for the next 150 years at least. I mean, the RFL aren't going to reduce their tennants ability to pay their rent are they?

Still, after years of being harrassed by flat earthers on here and their theories about the RFL propping us up, it's good to see the 'northern code" looking after their own

Starbug, you just demonstrated my point exactly.

You are just locked on "transmit" all the time. You don't seem to have a button for "receive".

I explained to you why you "buy" a long leasehold. There was nothing wrong with the RFL's wording. But, as usual, you chose not to listen. They were not being "less than truthful". They were not even being particularly disingenuous. They have bought the 150 year lease.

I explained to you why - as far as I was aware, and with my reasons - this appeared to be a transaction between the Bulls and the RFL, not the RFL and the Council. And I explained to you about the long lease. But, as usual, you chose not to listen.

I answered your questions. But, again, you chose not to listen.

I demonstrated how this quasi-loan - for that is surely what it is, and quite clearly because the club needs the money - set no real precedent, given the RFL's long history of engagement in clubs with financial issues. Like the loan to Crusaders. But you chose not to listen.

I have indicated quite clearly that, despite the spin being put on it, the purpose of the transaction had to be to provide support to the club. But you chose not to listen.

I accused you of nothing beyond a refusal to listen. You variously called me thick, stupid and a liar because I did not agree with you. I think our readers can judge who is what?

Incidentally, if I had to guess at why the Bulls are in this predicament: HMRC, and the tax investigations into historic image rights and the like. Go ask sugar daddy Pearson at Hull how much he had to settle, by way of example? Around £1m or so, was it not?

Wakey London and Widnes (if it affected them) are free of past liabilities because they all went bust and the taxman - us -was the biggest loser. Hull FC we know about. Leeds are owned by a sizeable plc. Wigan, Saints, Wire, Hudds all have rich owners. So, to a lesser extent do Salford and HKR, although I suspect they were on the periphery of the investigations in terms of scale. Cats don't count. Cas might be the only other club in anything like our situation - exposure for years past, no sugar daddy or equivalent - but I suspect Bulls had a much bigger exposure. Remember we are going back quite a few years here.

Is any other club at such risk of being wiped out by a big tax settlement? With the possible exception of Cas, I suggest from the above probably not. In terms of tax exposure, that makes the Bulls situation somewhat unique? And, if my guess is right regarding why the sudden need for cash on this scale, so then would the circumstances of the RFL support be.

Oh, and Gutterfax - if my guess is right, you are in no position whatsoever to talk given your club folded owing £1/2m AT THE TIME to HMRC, and who knows how much more might have been assessed had the original club still been in existence. Glass houses, mate.

The London Clubs total reported debts were in the region of 3 million after 100% assessment by HMRC....the Government were the only ones who got "burnt" and that was because they wouldn't accept a staggered payment scheme...the remaining losses were accepted by the majority shareholder....who incidently, continues to pump his own money (millions a year) into our club without getting on his hands and knees begging for handouts and using a percieved "historical value of the club and the ground" as reasons for a bail out of a club that has no right to be in financial difficulties.

The RFL have done what they will do, for reasons that they believe are acceptable....fine, but don't whine like a b1tch when your club and its fans get some grief for what smells like a bail out, looks like a bail out and in all probability, tastes like one too.

Er, you will find that there aren't many Bulls fans whining. Funnily enough. In fact, we think it's great. Genuine fans of the game are pleased enough that the RFL is looking after the interests of the game, whatever reservations there may be about the exact method, and the rest who like yourself, would rather see the game die a death than the RFL help another club, are left sick as Blackpool donkeys. That's a win-win situation for us, and therein lies the reason why the sound you hear is not bitches whining, but Bulls fans laughing at you and your ilk bleating like a stuck pig.

Except you miss the point completely.

London went bust well before all the HMRC investigations kicked off.

Had the club NOT gone bust, who knows what tax assessment the club would now be facing for image rights, EBTs, pensions and whatever else going back to the start of the noughties?

By going bust, London not only deprived HMRC of around £1/2m of tax that was already deducted from employees or collected in VAT - and so WAS NEVER THEIR MONEY ANYWAY (that is theft in my book) - but they ALSO
deprived HMRC of the opportunity to pursue an action on the scale they have been pursuing against most other SL club

Maybe Bulls should just go bust likewise, and then rise up again likewise? Free of debt and obligation to HMRC? Or maybe, just maybe, they should find a way to stay in business and actually settle the liabilities? The honourable way. And without the help of a rich owner.

And anyway, the only people who seem to be whining and bìtching are those from other clubs, too often without a clear understanding of all the available facts.

Er...I entered this debate with a tongue in cheek post regarding bolted on licences and the norvern mafia looking after their own........even after the standard "you lot went bust in 2005" response was rolled out, nothing other than tongue in cheek again.....but you now try and claim some imaginary high ground bu painting me as an anti RFL poster......when in fact, nothing can be father from the truth.
As I said, I have no doubt the RFL have their reasons for doing what they have done and in the end, the truth will come out, but the fact remains, until "said truth" does come out, expect a certainamount of "banter and winding up" to be headed the way of Bulls Fans.
BTW....how, after I applauded the iniatives of the Bulls last year in attracting fans back you can now attept to post me as someone who "would rather see the game die" is a tad dramatic.......Bradford Bulls are a Team in the ESL........they are not the game...HTH

Firstly, London went belly up with 2 main debts...one to HMRC and the other to the Major Shareholder. The entire amount owed was what was up for negotiation with HMRC and as a result of HMRC rejecting the offer of staggered payments, the decision was taken to do exactly what HMRC told the club to do......FOLD. They did what HMRC told them to do........not theft. If it had been theft, I think dibble and the associated court offices would have become involved....but cool story bro nonetheless



You've been posting long enough on these boards to know that if a club do anything that isn't normal, then they will be the subject of countless threads and theories.....don't act so surprised