Oh no, the RFL have a totally irrational but overbearing deep all-encompassing love for the Bulls, for unknown reasons, and an equal degree of hate for every other club. I suspect that the Bulls are the bas=#BF80FFstard lovechild of the RFL. The RFL's sole mission is to screw over everybody else and benefit the Bulls.

If it was any other club, all the RFL would do is laugh manically as they danced on its grave.

It'll be interesting to see how they manage that if they go into liquidation and are unable to pay players, staff or suppliers.

A nonsense response from the RFL as ever.

If the wage bill is £200,000 per month, thats 800k to come from somewhere, perhaps this is the right thing to do or maybe they feel confident that there will still be a Bradford team ?

I think the Tax Man ought to be questioning the sale of Odsal to the RFL.

There are a number of things that appear potentially difficult about the sale: Did Bradford and the RFL understand the poor financial state of the club, and the impending likelihood of liquidation? If so, was the sale concocted to ensure that Odsal would not be sold due to liquidation? Were fair market rates paid by the RFL, for an asset that would have had substantial value for the clubs creditors?

In other words, have Bradford illegally cheated their creditors out of money that could have been released during liquidation? And are the RFL conspirators in this potential fraud?

There may be circumstances that I am unaware of that may render my questions moot - but the situation certainly seems to be more than coincidental, in my opinion.

But the RFL don't own the stadium, they own the lease. Which I would imagine is of little value on its own.

As for it being a nonsense response from the RFL, how so? All they've said is if a newco were setup they would be able to continue with Bradfords fixtures for this season. It seems a reasonable statement to me.

All very interesting, but Odsal wasn't sold. The [ilease[/i was sold. I'm fairly certain that doesn't count as an asset any more than the players do.

Will they still receive a points deduction this season whether it be Bulls or Newco? I think there will be a lot of unhappy fans out there if the Bulls keep their license for the rest of the license period. Especially when the RFL said it was clamping down. Personally I don't mind either way as long as it doesn't adversely affect my club. Whatever the outcome, in the long run the Bradford fans will have a club to support which will come back stronger.

Well the bank certainly thought it was an asset as that's why they pulled the overdraft.

Wrong. The bank pulled the overdraft because they could - they were basically limiting their exposure to sports clubs in general and the Bulls in particular. It turns out that the lease had never been used as security in the first place.

But the banks statement said that the sale of the lease contributed to the decision to withdraw the overdraft facility. So they must have seen it as an asset.

I don't doubt that HMRC will be investigating this. Odsal couldn't be sold in liquidation, it belongs to the council. But in "buying" the lease, the RFL was getting something back for its money from previous loans to the profligate club when otherwise it would have just been another creditor getting 2p in the pound. The timing was suspicious, but the saving grace for the RFL if HMRC attempt to claw this back is that the lease is as good as worthless without a sports club playing on it.

Trebles all round.

Which brings us to the point of the Bulls fulfilling their fixtures in liquidation (aka there being a newco to give the RFL a return on their Odsal lease). This hasn't been thought through. A newco, if a sugardaddy isn't found before liquidation, stripped of assets (players), with no income (season tickets) for the rest of the season and the usual tax and incidental overheads will be losing money in 2011 at almost as fast a rate as the old Bradford Bulls. They literally will not be able to fulfill their fixtures no matter what the RFL wishfully say.

Everything I've read suggests that the Stadium was sold. Has that information been superseded?

Also, a secure tenancy can massively reduce the value of land, as it cannot be sold on for redevelopment until the lease is up or is bought out. This makes it worth a substantial amount in its own right.