Quote Kosh="Kosh"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?'"
The point still stands. The RFL bought a secure lease from Bradford Bulls. That secure lease is valuable - a VAT liability of £250,000, as reported, would amount to a sale price of £1m+. Without the permission of the holder of the secure lease, no change of use can be made for the land owned i.e. housing developments, supermarkets, etc.
Therefore, regardless of it being a secure lease or a freehold that was sold, a significant asset changed hands at a time when it could be presumed that both Bradford Bulls and the governing body realised that liquidation for the Bulls was a real possibility.
As my original post states, my point may be moot as there may be factors I am unaware of that make the deal legitimate and without question. I was unaware that it was a lease purchased and not the freehold, but that doesn't negate my point.
Is anyone aware of any other relevant points to support or counter my point?
P.S. On the topic of research, I had googled "[url=https://www.google.com/search?q=bradford+sell+odsal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-abradford sell odsal[/url" and none of the top 4 or 5 results mentioned that it was the lease sold and not the freehold. It's not my fault if neither Bradford nor the RFL publicised this fact.
