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.

Rubbish.



The Bulls paid a peppercorn to the council.



The RFL will pay a peppercorn to the council.



The council is in no worse position than before.



The council may own the freehold, but for all practical purposes what the Bulls held was tantamount to freehold for the lifetimes of us and at least our children and grandchildren. Same way much of the property in London is "owned".



This too has all been explained earlier and in the press reports.