Maybe thats what you need to ask yourself. Why have these things happened?
You assume that the RFL have stepped in to 'save' Bradford. I think that is the exact opposite of what has happened, and it is also the reason why other clubs (not all, remember this isnt the first or only time) may not have been in the position to do so the same thing.

Would it not be more likely that there have been (as mentioned in the release) that Odsal was subject to 'predatory approaches' and that left the club in a position where the Stadium could be sold out from underneath them, turned in to a supermarket and Bradford were homeless. So they approached the RFL and showed them a solid business plan where they could continue to grow and exist whilst paying a market value in rent for Odsal but simply couldnt afford the capital outlay required to buy the stadium, the RFL looking for somewhere to invest buys that property and rents it out for a few years when either Bradford buy the stadium off them, or find an alternative venue and the RFL makes a profit on the capital outlay and on the rent which they recoup from Bradford.

That is a massively different situation to giving Saints a million quid, paying over the odds for Cas's stadium (which we know they would need to do as if the market value of the Jungle was enough to allow them to build a new stadium then they would have already sold it) or building Oldham a stadium, or the position Wakefield were in.

This is the RFL showing ambition and people are assuming they have stepped in to 'save' Bradford.

You've seen the full terms of the deal then, and they prohibit the RFL from charging rent, or requiring the Bulls to incur any costs for changes to the stadium?

And the Bulls have spent years using their money to ' buy ' SL titles instead of sorting out somewhere to play that is up to the required standard, it puts them in the same ' club ' as Wakey,Salford,Widnes and a whole bunch of Championship Clubs, not one of the sports premier names

If the rent covered the costs, why would the council sell it?

Perhaps they wanted the cash now rather than income for the next X years?
There could be any number of reasons we could speculate about.

So ambition is purchasing an old run down stadium that doesnt even have a full size pitch and will cost an a fortune to bring up to a standard required for premier games.

Why do you have this fantasy that the RFL are going to turn it into a world class stadium and where is all this money going to come from to achieve this?

But that's not the point is it? According to the RFL's own statement, they have done this to save the stadium and save the Bulls from being homeless (all those predators lurking at the door). They haven't done this as an investment for the good of the sport. They have done it to help out the Bulls. Therefore, helping out Saints, Cas, Oldham would all be achieving the same objective: helping out a club.

Any number of reasons.

That question of the level of income compared to costs which the stadium generated would obviously be a part of the process by which the stadium was sold at market value.

Correct including the Bulls not being able to afford the rent the council expected to cover costs, it could be either way, we dont know

But considering land prices are at an all time low, now isn't the time to sell a property that is showing a profit rental wise with a guaranteed tenant

Which would surely mean the actual capital investment made by the RFL being very very low as the value of Odsal would be very very low.

Exactly. The RFL has stepped in to save the Bulls.

Others have been rendered homeless by the sale of their grounds. Why should the Bulls be treated any differently? The RFL was free to step in and buy Knowsley Road anytime they wanted. We were homeless for a season.

I would guess the running costs of Odsal to meet H&S standards would be very high.
We need some transparency here as surely the RFL serves the game and its fans. If it is able to help a member club whilst justifying the commerciality of the agreement then all well and good. If it has left the sport short of cash or in debt as a consequence then that is not acceptable imo.

And as a club, what would saints have gained by that?

To be honest, the fact you felt the need to only reply to half a sentence makes me think you are just trolling.