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.