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.

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 Has that information been superseded?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.

The RFL own a long lease on the ground. Bradford Council own the ground and have since 1985.

When pressed they admitted that was not actually the case. They just used it as a convenient excuse to save face.

There's also the small matter of any such arrangement requiring the agreement of the majority of the other 13 SL clubs. By no means a foregone conclusion.

Maybe try using both eyes?

And maybe you could tone down your attitude.

I'm not the one who failed to do even rudimentary research before publicly suggesting that the sport's governing body and a major club might have conspired to defraud creditors including the HMRC. Which of us do you think requires the most attitude adjustment?

Pack it in the pair of you or i'll go fetch a moderator.

Oh wait ............. erm .............

I am still safe. Only one of the two promised stands has been seen so far, so I stick with what I said.

actually when I say "stand" I do of course mean a roof.

2 have been put up though, one in the corner near the block of flats and the one behind the sticks?