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.

the bbc says the rfl bought the ground from the bulls, not the council, is this true? news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 709752.stm

the bbc says the rfl bought the ground from the bulls, not the council, is this true? news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 709752.stm

Quote Saint Simon="Saint Simon"the bbc says the rfl bought the ground from the bulls, not the council, is this true? news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 709752.stm'" not strictly. The council still own the stadium. The RFL bought the 120 year lease from the bulls for a cash sum and then sub let it back to us on the same length sub-lease in return for us paying rent each year.

Quote Saint Simon="Saint Simon"the bbc says the rfl bought the ground from the bulls, not the council, is this true? news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 709752.stm'" not strictly. The council still own the stadium. The RFL bought the 120 year lease from the bulls for a cash sum and then sub let it back to us on the same length sub-lease in return for us paying rent each year.

so unless we know the figures involved we wont know if the rfl have bailed out the bulls or made a sound business decision

Which also scuppers any plans certain people might have about getting hold of the Bulls just in order to get hold of a prime piece of real estate with motorway access and leave the club pretty knackered and homeless

The point is, if some unscrupulous person took over the Bulls last week, they could force a move out of the club and have the land the stadium stands on to do with what they pleased which could see Bradford left homeless or as 2nd class tenants at Bradford City's ground being crippled by the same large rent the football team are.

However, as the Bulls have sold the lease hold to the RFL, if someone bought the Bulls they couldn't do anything with the land

So this is nothing more than a surreptitious bail-out.

So the RFL bought the lease from the Bulls, then they lease it back to them, do the RFL then pay a lease sum to the council? If not ,a bad deal done by the council me thinks.

No, the council get no money from the deal.

Quote Saint Simon="Saint Simon"the bbc says the rfl bought the ground from the bulls, not the council, is this true? news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 709752.stm'" No. The RFL bought the Bulls' 150 year peppercorn lease (from the council) from the Bulls.

Quote Saint Simon="Saint Simon"the bbc says the rfl bought the ground from the bulls, not the council, is this true? news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 709752.stm'" No. The RFL bought the Bulls' 150 year peppercorn lease (from the council) from the Bulls.

You will never know the figures, and even if you did you would likely lack the information to make that judgment. As would I. Unless you were fully aware of the RFL's future plans for the stadium.

No it is not. How do you reach that conclusion?

If it was a bailout, there would be no need to buy the stadium. There are plenty of other, far easier (and probably cheaper) ways that could have been done.

The latest Bulls accounts show the finances remain tight, but the club was solvent. Even if something had happened to mean the club required some form of financial support, it would never be on the scale that required a long-term transaction of this nature and scale.

I have explained at length earlier, if you can be bothered to read.