Surely this is a conflict of interest for the RFL ,or in simple terms does this mean Bradford are exempt from ever having to apply for a franchise ?

Unless of course they fall behind in paying the rent .

So Bradford have sold the lease. Money for the bulls. In the same report is the quote from Bradford 'Our debts are manageable'.

Well they are now!

From the outside looking in this seems a dubious decision.
That said it may be common place in this sport these days so does anyone know how many other RL clubs have grounds owned by the Rugby Football League ?

There are a few amatuer clubs, in the pro ranks they have interests in Keighley and Rochdale, not direct ownership, but guarantors of leases, every deal is different

W71 hasn't been on for a while, is he advising them on property portfolios

On a serious note I'm not a fan of the RFL(or any sports governing body) having direct long term involvement in this way as for me it compromises them (intentionally or otherwise).
I suppose reading between the lines the alternate to not stepping in was a high profile RL club being in the press for all the wrong reasons so its damage limitation for the right reasons.

If i was a fan of a sl club i'd be a tad dissapointed if next season the Bradford squad looked quite a lot better than it has done for the last few seasons