No it doesnt.

So you are suggesting Bradford are unsustainable as a pro RL club at Odsal?

If they are unable to operate in SL at Odsal, it is highly unlikely they would last long in the Championship on 2,000-3,000 attendances

In the long term? Yes. Odsal is not a sustainable ground. Which is why there's been tons of attempts to get it redeveloped over the years. This is hardly some massive revelation. I know you want it to be because you'll be able to fit it into some other RFL conspiracy fantasy, but it's an old ground that needs work. Anyone who's been there can tell you that.

So basically, you're fooked

I've long thought that "Odsal costs a fortune" is something of a myth, partly fostered by the club during the many attempts to obtain a modern all seater stadium. I went to a fans forum about 10-12 years ago when Caisley claimed that £10m had to be spent on the ground "immediately" or it would lose its safety certificate. None of the "essential" improvements he mentioned have been carried out and rugby is still being played there..

Its an old ground but the terraces aren't crumbling, there's rarely any major maintenance work going on. There was a problem with a drain several years ago that cost £30k but that's the only significant item of expenditure that I'm aware of.

Ironically I listened to a group of Darlington FC fans a few months discussing their financial problems, most of which they attributed to their shiny new stadium which apparently incurs very large fixed costs.

Its still likely that If the club survives it will have to move to Valley Parade. Clearly ground sharing should cut the costs. But that would be the case for any clubs that ground share.

I think you'll find that in any "Non Manufacturing/Non Distribution" business the single biggest cost is labour and when spending up to the full salary cap on players plus the additional staffing cost means that on the Bulls turnover (circa £3.5-£4m) their salary costs were in excess of 45% I doubt the upkeep of Odsal (including rent) was over 45% of turnover even before the RFL bought the lease and definitely not after the RFL saved this "Iconic Stadium from predatory developers"

One thing has emerged though is the amazing number of top business and financial experts there actually are. It is truly humbling to be in such exalted company.

Neither you nor I have any idea whether spending on the playing squad was the major contributing factor to their current financial woes. In fact such figures as have become available suggest it was spending on [inon[/i playing staff that was excessive. There's also no indication whatsoever that during their successful period they had any financial difficulties at all.

Your entire argument is built on baseless speculation and some unwarranted assumptions. To then try and somehow blame the fans for enjoying something they shouldn't have is, frankly, absurd. How on Earth were they to know what was going on behind the scenes? It's also pretty ironic coming from a fan of a club that have, by their Chairman's own admission, overspent on their squad for their entire SL tenure. There but for the grace of Hudgell...

Oh - and the 50% rule was in fact in place for the vast majority of the time that the Bulls were supposedly 'overspending' on their squad.

Tbf, sometimes you have to spend to get to the next level. We've spent more than was sustainable in the long-term (certainly with our current infrastructure and attendances), but I'd suggest that is different to 'overspent'. We might regret that it was neccessary, but it was. When you've not had much investment in your youth structure or as much success recently as you're hoping for in the near future, a period of paying over the odds and/or running at a loss is inevitable. I thought you lot were on board with that now.

Bradford got stuck in a bit of a downward spiral, but I never anticipated anything on this scale. Lack of a benefactor, gambling on the low-priced season ticket pledge thing, years of poor-average sporting performance so soon after being brilliant - all will have contributed, I imagine, but what was most important I've no idea.

Yes, in the same way that Castleford, HKR and Wakefield are if they can't get new stadiums sorted out.

People from all walks of life use the tinternet duntchaknow

I know that when the club picked up the tab for Odsal in 2003 it suddenly had to pay for things like sorting out the main stand roof, getting new floodlights etc but these were one off payments.

Successive club chairman have spouted the line about the ground costing too much to maintain. I remember Hood himself likening it to an old house that is large and more costly to maintain. He then pedalled the opposite line once the lease was sold to the RFL. That left me with a rather cynical view of the whole argument.

I do know the club has had to stress test every steel barrier in the stadium every year. I expect that costs a bit. If they fail then they'll need replacing or repairing. There's an awful lot of them in comparison with anywhere else.

If Odsal really isn't a financial millstone then why have the Bulls been trying to develop it for so long?

According to the press, ABC have finally put in an official bid, but is conditional on buying back odsal and the Bulls staying in superleague.

If the consortium want to buy back Odsal, that's fine, as long as they pay the right price for it (whatever that might be, but not £1 or something stupid).

As for staying in SL, that's a tough one. I don't think it's really an issue, because the RFL will probably agree, but what it [idoesn't[/i say is stay in SL for how long?

We will never see the full details because they're confidential, but does it mean in SL for the rest of this season, the rest of the franchise, or even, for x number of years (beyond the current franchise)?

As I've quoted before, I still think Bradford will survive in SL in the end.

I think the RFL will have no choice but to turn down this conditional offer, not buying back Odsal, but guaranteeing to keep Bradford in SL. The integrity of the game, competition and the system, whether you like that system or not, are greater than one club and such they can't and shouldn't guarantee anything. Equally, they have already turned down a similar offer that Steve Parkin made to buy Wakefield Trinity for the same reasons, and therefore they have set their own rigid precedent on this matter.

I hope the consortium accept that the RFL can't make an absolute guarantee on this, still come in for the club and work quickly now and in the off season to convince the RFL that they should retain their place in SL in 2013. I think the odds on Bradford staying in SL are higher than going, and hope the consortium will take the risk.