If it’s the RFLs ground, the they are entitled to spend however much they want to. At the end of the day. Financials will dictate how much they spend, also remember that the money the RFL has belongs to all clubs under the banner RFL, and not the Odsal refurbishment fund.

Where did I say I went to a game in the 1800s?

Wigan and Hull both playing in front of half empty stadiums.

Think its time both clubs closed 2 stands and packed everyone in the rest of he ground. Its a terrible look on tv as it is.

New grounds are great.
Facilities and parking etc but I personally think crowds have suffered because of where they have been built.
Most old grounds were either in the centre of town or just on the outskirts.
Fans could walk to games and enjoy a drink before and after games.
Now we have to wait till car parks have emptied before we get onto a clear road.
Driving so can't drink.

Most new grounds west of the pennines are next to retail parks and only a 10 to 15 min walk from town. They also have lots of outside space for fans gathering having a drink, kids running around etc. The old grounds use to be near terraced streets with limited parking and too comgested for people gathering other than queing up to get into old turnstiles.

The grounds like Leigh, Wigan, Salford and Saints have loads of space to socialise before and after the game, Warrington and Widnes bit less space but plenty of pubs nearby.

The RFL are supposed to be custodians of the game not a slum landlord. I bet you vote Tory with an attitude like that - Imran Ahmad Khan!

I think crowds are generally down across the Superleague because of societal changes, less hype around Superleague and a reduction in the quality of the product on the pitch rather than a move to a new ground.

They should never have become landlords, it was outside their remit. Something that Bradford and the other clubs have paid a heavy price for.
It was wrong at the time and the decision (to take on the lease) doesn't look any better now.

Let's not forget that Bradford walked away from the lease and by returning to Odsal, appear to have agreed to it's current terms ?

_ I'm pretty certain that turning Odsal into "the Wembley of the North" isn't part of any agreement.

You’re absolutely right the RFL shouldn’t have taken on the leasehold if they weren’t prepared to do the work on the ground. Spot on that.

To be fair they foolishly thought they would be getting the sports money back. Taking over the lease was always a red herring to hide the trouble the Bradford club was in. The BS iconic status and predatory developers just insulted us all. It was a bad decision, for the Bulls more then anyone else as it turned out.

They tried to help the Bulls as they'd helped other clubs. Unfortunately the Bulls were beyond saving.

Indeed, but had to take the lease as security when the initial loan was not going to be paid back, and then things got worse when the bank realised its security had been 'sold'.

I think the term the Bulls fans used was 'Hoodwinked'.

I would add Huddersfield to those two as well. Unless it's Saints (at Wigan) or HKR (at Hull) the the atmosphere sometimes resembles a library and it doesn't show up well in televised games. I know these clubs regularly keep various stands closed because it costs more to open and steward them than it's worth. I am unaware as to how Wigan and Huddersfield operate but reading other independent forums i understand Hull FC (as part of their leasing agreement) are given 1500 seats for every game by their Stadium Management Committee whether the seats are filled or empty. This is counted in their 'attendance' figures which inflates their actual attendance figure at every home game.
The above stadiums are fine,( and needed,) for international matches, especially when Australia are in town but soul less for the other 90% of games played there.