Fair comment. Some bits I heard I'm best not being the one to talk about, but nothing sinister - quite the opposite. Other bits I have and can expand on. I can only express my thoughts and leave it to others to form their own opinions from whatever evidence is available.



I've expanded a bit on one of the key issues. I've pointed people at a series of press articles that may provide some more comfort and information regarding some of the other issues, including the potential for conflict of interest at franchise renewal time. You will see that is specifically addressed in one of the articles. My discussions DID include that issue yes, and I was reassured by what I heard. I was also reasured regarding how it can be a win-win financially, and not just a zero-sum scenario, which very briefly includes the RFL having access to financing and funding options for such transactions and projects that - in their particular situation - the club itself could not. See also my earlier point about cushioning against unexpected financial shocks. In exchange for the benefits the RFL partnership brings, the club has of course given up its most valuable asset. You can only ever do that once.



More on all this is likely to come out in the forthcoming fans forum, and I agreed it was proper for the club to respond officially in that forum or through its own media output rather than me drop bits out as some sort of self-appointed unoffical (and not necessarily reliable) conduit. Although I have effectively already done a bit of that, to try (doing what I hoped was right and appropriate in the circumstances) and alleviate some of the more pressing concerns, by putting some more meat on the bare bones of facets that have already been reported in the media. I can also say that I have given some aspects considerably greater emphasis than the club is - and that reflects my opinion, which may well be not quite what the club would prefer - indeed I am quite sure not. But I'm no-one's mouthpiece, and will only ever put on here what I believe to be true or what is my best guess or interpretation.



As for Central Park, I've been thinking about that. I guess the big difference was that the Wigan club had very large debts, secured on the stadium. Had the RFL bought that - "equally iconic" - stadium, what they would have been doing was buying an expensive freehold (wasn't it £13m as long ago as 1997) and paying off the club's loans. The amount involved would therefore have been greater by at least on order of magnitude than we are talking here, and I suspect now (let alone at the time, when the RFL was bust) beyond its means The ground was also constrained (the Odsal site is far bigger) and city centre as opposed to being right on the motorway network and pretty central. I guess finally, the Tesco deal resulted in Wigan moving to a state of the art showpiece stadium where - at the time at least - they were at least equal partners. I explained earlieer what the consequences of the Bulls moving to Valley parade were likley to be. And the value of the CP site was very high because it had PP for retail - Odsal does not - so this provided a great opportunity to bring in a LOT of outside money into a club and into the game, which is not the case at Odsal. Just my own thoughts, mind, but I used it as a exercise in trying to get in straight in my own head why the RFL might justifiably look at stadia and situations differently.

That was the bit that got me a bit puzzled to start with, until I figured it out. Remember, been there before in 2001 and we had a lot of discussions with the club then, so some of the thought process back then came back to me. The only way the council could get the site back from the Bulls, and therefore available for sale for redevelopment, was if the Bulls voluntarily surrendered their 150 year lease. The only way the Bulls would voluntarily surrender their lease was if they had somewhere else to go. The council would of course be unable to provide a new home, so the only game in town was a move to VP. And the only way that was going to happen was if the Bulls accepted one of the proposals put forward. And those proposals will presumably have been conditional upon the council agreeing a sale of the site to those submitting the proposals. Therefore, the council did not have the open-market option; the only options were the staus quo ante - netting nothing for the council - or selling to one of the interested parties, with whatever was paid being for the council.

This presumes the council want the site back for redevelopment and sale. There's no evidence that they want anything other than the Bulls playing there forever. The length of the original lease and the ease with which they transferred the lease to the RFL would support this. Your premise depends upon the council being keen to sell the site and get rid of the Bulls. In entering into series of interlocking agreements wherein the Bulls give up their lease and the council are obligated to re-home them and furthermore, being contracted to sell Odsal to a developer as part of this arrangement is not in any way supported by the facts as we know them.

If you insist on keeping looking for holes, you are playing a different game to me. I am just trying to interpret what I see, not acting as counsel for the prosecution.



As it happens, I suspect that yes indeed, the Council was not seeking to redevelop the site - and maybe sees a strong Bulls as a far more effective draw for the city. But I have to cite "balance of probabilities" not "beyond reasonable doubt" since we seem to be making this an inquisition. All the available evidence certainly points this way.



But my premise most definitely does NOT depend on what the council wants. It never said anything about the council being keen to sell the site - you have seemingly chosen to read that into it, in which case you are dead wrong. It depends on what the Bulls elected to do. If the Bulls asked the council to surrender the lease, what could the council's response be? If it said "no" it would potentially consign the Bulls to eventual insolvency and deprive the authority of capital asset sale proceeds. So there could only be the option of "yes" open to them. And once they said yes, then it proceeds as in my scenario.

What are these other grounds and stadia the RFL have invested in before?



Strange decision unless they have an intention to create a RL version of Twickenham?

Not in the current economic climate they don't. Nobody would. But, going forward - well what do YOU think? I know what I think.

Nobody appointed you as counsel for the defence of this deal so can we leave the stroppy tone out please? Instead of stretching these scenarios so wafer thin we can all see right through them we should be trumpeting this deal as potentially the most important decision the RFL have made since the inception of SL and possibly before that. There is simply not a chance in hell that Bradford Council would allow themselves to be held to ransom by the owner of the Bradford Bulls over a site the size of Odsal in the manner you outline, particularly if his ambitions were as naked as you suggest. Were the club to ask for a release from the lease the council may well agree but under literally no circumstances would they allow this release to be subject or conditional on the sale of Odsal to the same person/group. A sale you think would be conducted without being subject to relevant planning consents, change of use discussions on a site that was once a tip. Instead of suggesting people are holding an inquisition in order to find holes please go back to the person who told this 'theory and ask them WTF they're talking about.

Nor you the counsel for the prosecution. I have relayed, as best I can, what I have understood and what I have concluded. "Hold to ramsom"? Your words not mine. Once again you have misrepresented what I said - the original example being the reason for my tone. All I suggested was how things might come about. As it happens, I think there is every chance - in the absence anyway of any alternative proposal - that the council WOULD have been able to do precisely what I suggested, since the alternative would leave them open to attack from all sides. But it is academic anyway, since it is not now going to happen. So disagree by all means; I am quite satisfied.

How is [iany[/i of that affected by Bradford becoming sub tenants, rather than tenants?



The Shareholders remain the same and have the same rights to vote on any matters, including take-overs, that they had before the RFL bought the lease.



Do you understand the difference between shareholders and directors?

So, the Bulls and the RFL have made it clear they intend to do nothing with the stadium but, watch this space, the article hints that at some point, unnamed in the future, they might do something. Not saying what and, indeed the RFL are saying no such thing, just Hood and the article hinting.



That makes things clearer.





I'm not vehemently against this, in fact, I support it. But the position is confusing. Let me try and surmise and you can hint (or even better come out and say) if I am right based upon what you have been told.

As you say, the Bulls had security of tenure. It would have been hard for anyone buying the freehold to cause the Bulls any issue with their rights in the property.



So, was a potential takeover of the company (the Bulls) by another party on the cards? If so, a change in their position as tenants doesn't alter their susceptibility to a takeover at all. Unless, the deal they have signed with the RFL binds the Bulls to the lease and has very, very punitive consequences if the Bulls breach that lease. That would put off any potential party looking to taker over and m,ove the Bulls elsewhere.



Am I near (apologies if you've covered this in any of your recent posts in the last few pages but I've been lazy and not read through them all)?

If all previous utterances from the club are to be believed, and I don't see why they shouldn't be, then I don't see where any threat comes from unless the club itself was subject to hostile takeover with a view to relinquishing the lease voluntarily.

The Bulls have confirmed approaches were made.



I explained in an earlier post the circumstances that could have led to the Bulls concluding the risks of staying at Odsal (following the collapse of the OSV project) were now too high, and how that would pretty well force them into the arms of one of the "predators". Who seemed to have no interest in the Bulls beyond a means to an end of acquiring Bradford City and the Odsal site to fund it (Maislebugs will tell you the reasons why that could not be so, for a contrary view, so form your own view). That route was seen as leading to the eventual final demise of the club, so was not particularly attractive.



That scenario, which I am satisfied is perfectly credible, envisages an agreed - if unwelcome -takeover, and a voluntary surrender of the Odsal lease. Out of necessity, the alternative presumably being eventual insolvency, presumably with increasing pressure from the "predators" in the meantime. And it pretty well accords with what the parties have been saying. Like me, people should obviously form their own views as to whether it is indeed the reason why the bulls had to do SOMETHING, and whether that scenario justifies the description "predatory approaches" used by the RFL in their press release.