On that specific point of future licensing, if the result was to guarantee the club a licence then that would inded be unfair. Albeit hardly more unfair than the way "development" clubs got a guaranteed licence?

But the stadium is only a limited part of the licensing criteria. This action does not directly change the club's ranking against the other criteria, against which (other than on-field performance) the club already rates pretty highly. Nor of course should it directly affect on-field performance. All it does is seemingly guarantee we will still have an old, acceptable-but-ideally-needs-to-be-better stadium to play in rather than say sharing the more modern VP. How does that guarantee us a SL place? We could be binned and the RFL could appoint another franchisee to play at Odsal, and pay the RFL a commercial rent.

Can we please not turn this into another blame-London thread? There are probably enough dobbers reading this to start confusing the issues and their conspiracy theories will become even more fantastic. This is about Bradford.

I have no problem with the bail-out, and I'd love to believe that one day the RFL will have/obtain enough cash to develop a national RL stadium. But I think this has been handled in an awfully cack-handed way. The fact is that there's ammunition here for those who want to see conspiracies, and particularly distrust the RFL. This is a bail-out for Bradford. It needs to be openly acknowledged as such, and the consequences of that decision faced openly. Saying that it's some sort of investment in a historic ground, or saving Bradford from a bizarre private-sector compulsory purchase is nonsense, and it's transparent nonsense. By misleading over motives, the RFL are pouring petrol on to the paranoid fires of a certain type of League-Express letter-writer. They should be open, and state that this has been done to save Bradford from collapse, and while it's a loss now, they hope that this will be a turning point allowing Bradford to reshape their finances and develop a more stable existence, with the possibility of returns either through rent or development in the longer-term.

Two final points :

1) I hope to God the RFL lined up all the other club managements behind this before they did it. I'm sort of assuming they did it this way because there was a by-law or regulation which prvented them from just bunging one member club lots of cash, rather than because they were trying to hide what it was from the other clubs.

2) I've read so many comments on this board, and in the RL press, from people who style themselves RL fans, endlessly banging on about how the RFL is wrong to spend any cash at all south of Doncaster, and how it's ridiculous that we should even allow people who say "barth" rather than "bath" to watch or play our game. They nearly always state that while they're not opposed to spreading the game (of course, how could we ever think such a thing?), the RFL should look after the interests of the "heartland" clubs first. Well here you go people. This is the RFL offering the biggest direct help package to a club that it has ever offered, and it's as heartland as it comes. So I shall look forward to all those "fans" writing here and in the RL press about how pleased they are that the RFL has stepped in to save such a historic and traditional club.

Similarily to Mr Haggerty and despite what many think of me and my opinions on here , if this is a loan from the RFL to protect the demise of Bradford [ possibly due to the image rights issue then fine , the RFL have covered themselves by taking the lease as callateral to ensure it shouldn't end up being a total loss

But once again it is the pathetic attempt to cover it up , using the ' Historic Odsal ' disguise

Odsal isn't historic , the name is , the stadium isn't , we no longer have the historic Wmbley , it is just the name ,

So why try to hide the truth , it took all of a few hours for it to surface

So Bradford were in the brown smelly stuff , the sports governing body has helped them out , there are implications to it , both for other clubs and the licencing process

Does it affect my club ? , no , am I allowed an opinion on it ? , yes , was it ultimatley the right thing to do ? , yes

But stop trying to hide everything , we are plainly not as stupid as you think we are , and assuming that just makes you look more stupid than you actually are

Your a pompous git at times

but you're not wrong on this.

I wish Bradford all the best, most clubs have found themselves in this state ay one time or another or near permanently in my own clubs case and it's not nice. No idea what London have to do with this and I'm sure as hell not a friend of the great experiment.

In this case the RFL is doing it's job in a sound manner - so why the need for the ludicrous spin I really don't get other than maybe they can't admit that even in the modern age of SL a flagship club can falter badly. Now that's a bit sad.

My only reference to London (inter alia) was in pointing out that this is hardly the first time the RFL have helped a club, and that the help can be far wider than just direct financial.

Incidentally, this looks increasingly like a commercial deal - RFL pay Bulls a capital sum up-front, in exchange for the right to future annual rentals - off ANY tenant, of course. It may well meet the Bulls' immediate needs, but at the expense of the future. Looks and walks and quacks to me very much like a normal commercial "sale and lease back" . Sell it for cash up front and pay rent in future.

hardly a "bail-out" there, then? Just a win-win for all parties (except the likes of those who seemingly wanted us out of Odsal so they could get hold of the Odsal site from the council and redevelop it). And as long as RL is played at Odsal, the RFL are guaranteed a future income stream.

So, basically the RFL have bailed Bradford out, I don’t have a problem with that, jeez, they did the same with Crusaders, which to the more realistic of us, was just suicidal.

However, by purchasing the lease, they have made a precedent and also the club are now gold-plated regarding future licensing. I would have been more at ease if they (The RFL) had just loaned Bradford the money.

Er...if it is a reasonably commercial sale-and leaseback, it can't be a "bailout".

As for precedents, I could argue that the situation regarding Odsal is pretty unique, lending itself to a pretty solution. Others would doubtless disagree.

That's only true if the RFL have taken over the upkeep of the stadium. All the information released so far doesn't seem to support that idea.

The timing and apparent rushing through of this deal makes me wonder if Bradford are the first of the big SL clubs to have the HMRC image rights payment demand drop on the mat ?

But Pearson at Hull would likley contend for that one.

As I said about 800 posts back, Bulls are PROBABLY the only club with a: big bill and b: no rich owner/funds in bank to pay it. That likely makes the Bulls' situation fairly unique, and therefore the solution (if such it indeed is) equally so?

Oh come on Adey, it’s just a dog by any other name, if Bradford weren’t cash-strapped why else would the RFL intervene?

By the sound of it they’ve only acquiring the lease, it’s hardly going to be a cash-cow.

I agree though, Odsal is unique, but not in a good way

.

Pearson made a smart move by breaking ranks and making a voluntary disclosure which effectively enabled him to negotiate a smaller settlement and time to pay it, rather than sitting back and waiting for the inevitable.

With regard to the Bulls, I would not be at all surprised if the 'predatory' moves against the stadium were in fact from HMRC if it became clear that they had no means or future likelihood of paying the bill. It was recently announced that HMRC asset seizures have risen by over 400% in the last few months, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

There's a lot of explaining that needs to be done by the RFL, and a lot of questions to be answered. Here's just a few:

What was the purchase price?
What is the rent payable?
What obligations have the RFL taken on to maintain or redevelop the ground?
What are the RFL's plans and aspirations for Odsal in the medium/long term?
Why haven't the RFL intervened to save other SL grounds from being lost to developers? (If that was the purpose of this).
If any financial subsidy, direct or indirect, is being given to Bradford, why ahs that not available to other SL clubs in the past and will it now be available to the likes of Wakefield and Castleford.

And just a couple of corporate governance points (though it's hard to imagine anyone at HQ will even have heard of the concept

):

How did the RFL deal with conflict of interest issues when approving this deal?
How will the RFL deal with conflict of interest issues in relation to Bradford going forward? In particular, will it hand over the licensing system to an entirely separate body? If not, how will it ensure that it is seen to be independent?

The lack of transparency from the RFL would be astonishing, if it weren't for the track record of those in charge of the game in this country.

This is the only issue for consideration , everything else should remain between the RFL and Bradford

Why should the RFL reveal the fine details of its commercial property deals in the public domain?

Where were you asking these kinds of questions when the RFL acquired Cougar Park, Spotland and various amateur grounds for their property portfolio? Or does the fact it's a ground used by a SL club somehow make a difference?

The RFL doesn't have to tell you anything, diddly squat. You're not involved in the running of the organisation, you're not one of the member clubs, you're just an end user of the product generated by its members.

I never cease to be amazed by the number of RL fans who think that they are entitled to know everything that happens behind the scenes at the governing body. Do they wander around Asda questioning how much Wal Mart paid for the land and whether they offer their farmers a fair price for milk?

I disagree.

The RFL is the governing body of the sport and therefore when it decides to spend everybody's money to bail out one club, especially given its statements concerning financial issues, everybody has a right to know exactly what has occurred. Fans and clubs are stakeholders along with Sky and Sport England. Money goes into the RFL kitty from all these sources and therefore all these sources have a right to know how their money is being spent, particularly when it is spent on bailing out a particular club.

The RFL did itself no favours by expecting people to believe the ridiculous spin about Odsal stadium. Had the plans gone ahead for the sporting village, the loss of Odsal would not have been so much as commented upon by the RFL. Therefore it is ludicrous to try and justify this move by claiming there is something special about Odsal.

But it can be justfied if the RFL are making money out of it, and if as Starbug rightly said, they can maintain conflict of interest issues.

How come no one kicked off when the RFL got involved with similar deals with smaller clubs and helped other clubs out in other ways?

One reason might be that franchising/licencing will never affect them clubs

.

So, effectively, the RFL have helped one of it's member clubs by buying a leasehold property from them.

Adey, if the Bulls were previously paying a peppercorn rent do you think they will now be paying the RFL a commercial rent? Could the Bulls be worse off when the lump sum has been spent with?

My recollection is the previous agreement between the Bulls and the Council circa 2003 was that the Council gave the Bulls a significant cash sum to negotiate the terms of the lease so that the Bulls maintained the stadium but only paid a peppercorn rent.

:358vycvg

Unlikely to