I thought that when the Bulls returned to Odsal from Valley Parade, the Bradford Council gave them a long lease for some nominal sum like a pound a year or something on the condition that they, the Bulls, paid for the maintainance of the stadium which is astronomical.This is merely from my memory.Perhaps someone can verify this or not as the case may be.

If this is true, are BCC not breaking the lease by threatening to sell the stadium out from under the Bulls.

As to redevelopment, I think this is not on the agenda at this time, but the potential is enormous, if funding from Govt. European Community , naming rights or private investors could be found. Loans could be paid off over time by revenue from finals and internationals held there.

What's certainly true is the RFL are going to put all their capital into a hastily arranged deal to develop a stadium into something that has been on the drawing board in various guises for about seventy years without any signs of success thus far. They're doing this purely for the benefit of the Bulls and an option to host two semi finals a year.

What happens when it becomes RFL Park and they start taking the big league games away from the member club grounds and playing them at Odslum, a la Aussie Rules ?

If the stadium isnt being maintained to the required standard then the Bulls would have broken the lease conditions, therefore allowing the council to sell

But didn't the RFL buy Odsal because the BCC were receiving predatory offers and were considering selling therefore making the Bulls homeless.

It seems to me that the Bradford Bulls have sold their 99 year lease back to the BCC and received a tidy sum or it. They've then been placed in jeopardy because the BCC were free to sell Odsal from under the Bulls feet and have run to the RFL to be bailed out. Doesn't that make the Bulls the architects of their own downfall, haven't they enjoyed the cash windfall from the sale of their lease then had the benefit of the security blanket thrown round them by the RFL, the very same security blanket will now protect the RFL Bulls from being excluded from Super league.

It's amazing how someone can deduce all that without any facts. Admirable almost.

Probably a bit late to the party here, but I'm not reading through 10 pages.

Man buys property for x amount, rents it out for x amount which pays off the initial investment off over time and then starts turning a profit. Add that to the fact they're safeguarding a 'proper' rugby ground and helping out one of our most famous clubs, I fail to see how this is but a good thing.

And you are familiar with the lease conditions?

It was a long (150 year, IIRC) lease. I very much doubt maintaining the stadium to a required standard would be a term of such a lease. A lease of that length is tantamount to freehold for most practical purposes.

That, of course, is why the Bulls are responsible for all the costs.

In reply to Keighley1, I feel sure it is the Bulls "sold" the long leasehold to the RFL, rather than the council selling the freehold. But even if it WAS a sale of the freehold, there would be no breach provided (and, unlike Starbug, I do not profess to know the terms of the long lease) the lease allowed the freeholder to sell the freehold. The lease would presumably not be affected, and the new freeholder would therefore be stuck with the Bulls!

What sale back to the council?

What cash windfall?

Why would the Bulls surrender their peppercorn rent long lease?

Pray do tell.

Providing the second x is enough to pay for the borrowing of the first x, and the property is safely maintained , then yes, but as the tennant was struggling ( apparently , or there was no reason for the original landlord to sell ) to pay what was a minute rent and maintenance costs , then how will they expect to pay a larger rental

Second point is,Odsall is far from a ' proper ' stadium, even by 20th century standards, why save something that is no where near the required standard?

I don't like these comparisons with Wakey, Cas & Saints. I can see it from your point of view how it seems the RFL are saving Bradford.

Bradford would have never ever been kicked out of SL because of their stadium. They have superb attendances, a great junior development & state of the art training facilties. If the RFL had have let the council sell odsal, we would have been forced to move to Valley Parade, attendances would have plummeted, the Bulls would have been financially crippled by the rip off merchants at VP (Look what has happened to Bradford City) and the RFL would have lost one of it's biggest members, thus affecting future sponsorship, TV deals etc.

The RFL haven't bailed Bradford out. The will get money in RENT thus making money. If the RFL have brought Saints, Wakey, Cas stadiums, how would they have made any money from it.

I can understand why some other fans are upset, but i think your clutching at straws and wanting a conspiracy theory.

Sorry mate, but they have bailed out the Bulls, the circumstances at the other clubs you mention are totally different , but in these days of franchising and stadium criteria, this is a massive advantage to Bradford

Your first paragraph describes a bail out.

As I see it, nothing has changed for Bradford, apart from who they make the cheque for the rent to.

They might have a more secure future and a more understanding landlord, but they haven't been bailed out of anything.

Yes they have. They have been bailed out of becoming homeless and unable to pay higher rent elsewhere.

I think we can all agree that's an evil that tarnishes the game.

We could do with some clarity as to what the RFL have actually bought, and need to make a separate distinction between the land (lease) and the stadium (bricks and mortar). If the RFL have just bought the leasehold then there is no payment to the Bulls. However, if they have actually bought the 'stadium' then I'd assume that those tangible constructs on it (grandstands, offices, bars, corporate boxes etc) were assets of Bradford Bulls and as such they will have received payment for them accordingly.

It might be the amount on that cheque that has changed as well, it has been suggested they were paying a ' peppercorn ' rent, but had to maintain the stadium, now we are told they will be paying a proper rent, but who will maintain the place?

The total costs have risen, there is still the maintenance costs, but now there will be interest charges as well

That money has to come from somewhere? ,

So Football has Wembley.

Union has Twickenham.

We have Odsal, happy days.

This is wrong, so wrong what kind of precedent is this setting???
I don't care the ground has history so did Station Road, Watersheddings, Thrum Hall, Central Park and Knowsley Road but all these clubs at those grounds had to do it the hard way and raise their own money to fund new grounds or move to grounds shared with football clubs and improve them.
Plus how come they have done this with OUR money, that is the fans and other clubs money when the RFL won't even give Championship clubs any of the Premier Sports money, it stinks.

No coincidence that Fat Controller comes from Bradford then never heard of a 'vested interest'???

Plus the ground was a public owned 'assset' are the local council taxpayers happy they have subsidised (yet again didn't the Council pay for the improvements a few years ago and that block at the far end?) the RFL and a professional rugby club? Any public asset should be put on the open market when being cashed in, especially in the current climate of budget cuts and services being cut, did the Council get the best price for this site or its true value???

What are the RFL going to do with the ground now plus who and how are any jobs and improvements that need doing going being paid for,.
There are lots and lots of questions but like the North Korean regime the RFL won't tell anybody anything its a closed shop. How I wish we could do a Freedom of Information request on the RFL.

I absoluteley hate the RFL even more now this deal stinks.

Explain why the Bulls would have become homeless?

When we had a very very long lease for a peppercorn rent, which in all practical aspects was the same as holding the freehold.

Any change of ownership of the freehold is unlikely to have had any bearing on the Bulls, in the same way that if you "own" a long-leasehold house a change of who you pay the ground rent to does not affect your occupancy.

Go and find your dummy mate, you're embarrassing yourself.

The RFL don't help out the heartland clubs.


Oh wait, yes they do. But still get criticised! Good old RLFans.

And one of your competitors - keighley - are merrily signing players while the RFL 'own their ground'. Are the RFL transparent over financial arrangements?

Did you miss the word 'seemingly' in my post in your haste to criticise? It was there to indicate how things may [iappear[/i at first glance. And since the press statement already includes the information that the Bulls will be paying rent I can only assume that you were trying to be facetious.

No matter what the commercial arrangements may be there is clearly scope for the appearance of favour when the body setting the criteria is also the landlord and in a position to either do the work as part of the tenancy agreement or set the costs for the Bulls to do it. It's a situation that will need careful handling given the suspicion which a large section of fans exhibits towards anything the RFL do.