There are a fair few rants on numerous boards, not least this thread

My company does a fair few deals like this: Buying a companies assetts, and then selling them back to that company as a service. Whilst we do it with IT, the RFL have done it with property.

It's never called a bailout, or deemed that we have scammed the company, or that they have scammed us.

I didn't. What I did, was fail to add a question mark at the end of my sentence. This is because I type up comments far too quickly and rarely proof read them, except for the most cursory glances on the long ones.



I was asking the question, of the poster I replied to, is this all it amounts to in his/her opinion, but clearly fecked up.



I apologise for the hurt, angst and distress caused to you and your fellow Bradford Northern RFL Bulls fans.



I believe the etiquette, in modern parlance, is 'my bad'



My bad

You really believe that too, don't you?



Whilst your individual posts may not constitute what you consider to be a rant, the very tone of all your posts is most certainly that of a demogogue.

Stop holding facts up, they'll only get ignored.

So because people do business deals that aren't ' bail outs ' or ' scams ' , this cannot be either of those ?



Either the bulls needed the money, or they didn't?

You really are one obsessed individual!



Out of interest, would you describe any individual who borrows money against his property as having been bailed out? Or any individual who has retired and no kids who does an equity release deal with his house as having been bailed out?



Just because someone chooses to realise a capital sum against a property asset does not mean it is a bailout.



The whole problem is that if you refuse to accept the RFL saw this as a big opportunity on its own account, then you end up concluding it had to have been a bailout. Which means you choose to believe that the RFL press release was a lie. The thing is, some people will choose to believe what they want to believe. I choose to believe that this deal saved the Bulls from the clutches of a Steve Parkin and gave the RFL a large legacy strategic site for the future for almost certainly far less than any comparable option.

Why would they be bothered about Steve Parkin ( whoever he is ) if they are not in any financial trouble, I assume he is the ' predator ' ?

Adeybull, I don't know much about this Parkin fella but I don't see how the RFL buying the Odsal lease stops him from carrying out his plans. It makes it more difficult for him, granted, but doesn't actually prevent him if he is intent on doing it.



What is stopping him buying the Bulls and still moving them to Valley Parade ? If he did then the RFL would be left with a hole in the ground with no tenant and would most likely surrender the lease anyway. Same outcome for Parkin, just a little bit more difficult than the direct route.



I suspect you'd say that the capital from the sale makes the Bulls more financially secure, but on the flip side if shareholders wanted to sell then now would be the best time to realise best value from their shares.



Or am I missing something ?

No, but clearly because people do business deal that aren't 'bail outs' or 'scams' this doesnt have to be one of those.

Thats your false dichotomy.

because you dont need to be in financial trouble to be susceptible to predators

If that is the case, then surely having money is no protection either ?