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 ?

Yes.

The predators only wanted the Bulls so they could get hold of the Odsal site and redevelop it. They wanted that to pay for buying Bradford City and Valley Parade. They were seemingly only interested in the soccer, and seemingly were satisfied they could cut a deal with the council over buying Odsal. The club saw a very very poor future under that setup. The problem for the club was that they lacked the resources to pay for development at Odsal and also to withstand any major cost shocks. The collapse of the OSV project together with the inability to get retail planning consent meant Bulls could not risk staying at Odsal but the only alternatives meant selling the club and consigning it to a very mediocre future.

So what do you do? Find an alternative. Which is what they did.

Incidentally, none of this would have been necessary had the Bulls been able to develop Odsal in partnership with a retail development like pretty well EVERYONE ELSE! That we could not was due entirely to the LAST time Bradford City was in the crap and there were plans to save it using Bulls again as the sacrificial lamb.

As I understand it, the predators expected to be given the club pretty well for free by the shareholders.

Now Odsal is safely parked with the RFL, the club is of no interest to the predators and is safe from them. The proof will be that you will not hear any more from them now.

Are you totally bloody deaf?

It was not the money that sodding well mattered to secure protection from the predators. It was putting Odsal out of their reach whilst still providing Bulls with a home.

Look him up. He's got a long list of failed attempts at buying sports clubs usually when they're in trouble.

Sorry, but this still doesn't add up.

Why would the shareholders sell out "pretty well for free". Who are these people? If it were me I wouldn't sell shares in a rugby club to a "predator" but if for some reason I were intent on selling, if I knew that the buyer was going to make a lot of money out of the deal or needed the shares as part of a bigger scheme, there's no way I'd sell up for next to nothing!

I'm afraid that as I've said before on this thread, unless the RFL publish a full and frank account of the reasons for and terms of this deal, it is going to attract criticism and suspicion.

And then there is the issue of what the RFL is going to do in the future with the site.

And then there is the issue of how the RFL is going to deal with the serious conflict of interest it now has.

Not good. Not good at all.