Coincidence that's Woodies pie budget, I think not

Stuff and nonsense; only you could turn Odsalgate into some kind of Machiavellian plot by the RFL to make some brass out of the Bulls. I don't believe that you believe that.

I don't. Because I never said that. Caisley & co implied they thought that. I said above I did not subscribe to that view. I didn't then (and railed publically at them for alleging it) and I don't now.

What I DID say, and what I believed then and believe now, is that the RFL win whatever happens. They got a SL club able to fulfil its fixture obligations, when there was no clear alternative to take their place at such short order, and with a better return on their investment than money in the bank; and with potential to e.g. move to there from Red Hall in the future (saving loads) and develop the site as a RL HQ if they so wished. Or, if it all went tìts up, an asset the council would love to get their hands on and doubtless be open to a decent deal for doing so.

No sinister plot by the RFL; just smart business, at limited risk. Indeed, precisely what you would want to see from them?

If we could cut out some of the ad hominem nonsense, surely there could be chance of a sensible debate? That is the only reason I ever occasionally come on here (usually giving up in exasperation afetr a while), despite what you might choose to think.

ps. the "They" in the penultimate paragraph of the post you were responding to? For the avoidance of doubt, that was Caisley & co - not the RFL. Maybe I did not make that clear? I actually think the RFL stepped in, at least in part, to help prevent someone getting the club just to make a quick buck on the site.

Exactly OK offered to waive a year of Sky money. Several SL clubs suggested that rather than pass on £1.2m OK should take 50% over 2 years. Some Bulls fans like to talk about consfiscating funds. Utter rubbish. Those Bulls fans with a problem about the sky money should speak to Kahn / Sutcliffe and others with OK Bulls.

A sport governing body is not created as a front for property development. It is not the job of a sport governing body to pump significant funds into some clubs and not others. It is mainly a group of self interested Bulls fans who continually defend the odsal purchase.

I don't know what point you are trying to make, but that is the rent. Its deducted from the monthly Sky monies payment, as I understand it.

THAT is stuff and nonsense.

Indeed, Bren2k confirms what I said about the "offer" being no such thing. It was that or nothing. Regardless of what it was agreed would be said in public.

I do not even understand your second point. I cannot see what in what I said you are taking issue with? I never said any of the things in that paragraph.

See my PS to Bren2k's post above. Maybe you misunderstood my point because I did not make clear to whom I was referring?

I do not dispute the figures you quote Adey, but the RFL have clearly stated they have no intention of doing anything other than maintaining Odsal as a stadium and keeping it safe from predatory developers. The RFL's statement about saving the Iconic Stadium effectively makes that investment worthless to them.

None of us know for sure the Murkey details of the Omar Khan agreement to stay in SL, but there was considerable discontent at the Odsal deal, rightly or otherwise I had always understood that was the reason for the Sky reduction. I am sure I read that somewhere but in truth it could have been on a forum/twitter.

Accepting for arguements sake the potential value of Odsal I do have to wonder why stay with a millstone when a move could be salvation? It does seem that Previous custodians of the Bradford Club have let you down far more than I realised.

It is quite extraordinary to watch so much debate over a ruling from the RFL which has not even been made. Absolutely extraordinary, but there is so much at stake and that breeds fear and that makes the RFL decision so hard. Should the Bulls be punished for a second administration in so short a time? In my view yes, but what punishment, it must be seen to be just but also should not be so harsh that the Bulls are left without hope.

What will that punishment be? I have no idea, neither would I like to be making that decision, somebody will be upset by it and with good reason. That is what happens when rules are written to leave too much discretion. What is correct and fair from you perspective may be different from mine yet both views may be justifiable under the vagueness expressed in the RFLs documents. That is just not right.

If for example the rules stated if you suffer an insolvency event the penalty is x points, if you settle all Rugby and HMRC debt then it is reduced by 50% then there would be no dispute. The rules are inadequate and need re-written

I could not care less what you think or do / do not understand.

I was responding to a poster and not you so spare me your references to yourself or bren2k. This thread does not revolve around you.

If you do not like my comments about Kahn's offer..tough.

OK offered to take a cut of 1 year of sky money and the RFL accepted. deny it as much as you like. Your brown nosing umpteen Bulls regimes (til they go under)is a running joke.HTH

sorry all for waving a red hanky it was meant to be white

didn't mean to set him of on a rant

Proves my point exactly about people who are not interested in debate, just telling everyone they are right. And going [iad hominem[/i when they do not get their way.



Ditto

look into my eyes,
not around the eyes,
straight into my eyes,

I am not going to be hypnotised by your bull

3,2,1.

The problem with wanting debate Adeybull is that the facts are not really known so there is a lot of feeling being discussed rather than clarification of facts.
At the risk of setting a new fire.......given what you see the truth about the current slip into admin (not anything else like stadium or help from clubs) what would you do if you were the RFL?

It seems a points deduction is the set rule, though I have not seen the official line on this.
What would you do as an unbiased governing body?

Pot kettle black.

And this proves my point about people who ARE interested in serious debate.

You do not have to be able to agree to be able to debate. Just to listen to what the other guy is saying, then make your own reasoned point.

Many thanks for that. I can only agree with the large part of it. And defo about how badly previous administrations have let Bulls fans - and the game - down. And I was SO angry when I discovered that Hood - that ALL the board - separately, individually and to my face - had lied to me about the Odsal sale. I tended to assume folk were telling the truth unless or until proven otherwise. Got badly burned on that one, as did my faith in humanity.

I'm not sure the RFL HAVE clearly stated future intentions regarding the stadium though? Beyond retaining it as a RL stadium and not seeing it redeveloped for other purposes, which I believe was one of the major justifications they advanced at the time for taking on the lease. That does not preclude them, e.g. developing it into a new RL HQ, though? It is a big site, and they could save a lot of rent - and get a purpose-built HQ (not just offices, either) on a site they effectively owned. Not many other sites they could have acquired, at modest cost too, that would allow that? But thats opinion, of course.

Regarding the deal done by OK and Sutcliffe with the RFL, indeed only the parties to it know all the detail. I can only go on what the then-chairman and hois deputy said, same was as Wakey fans can go on wht THEIR chairman said to them. And that it wa smade pretty c;lear to them what they would have to "offer" to be allowed to retain a SL licence. The tragedy is that OK - or, more to the point, those working for him - was clearly assuming totally unrealistic income and costs (in opposite ways). And I have seen forecasts and financials, so - without going into details, I can say that. So I can only assume he believed he could make it work on the reduced Sky money.

As for why stay at Odsal? Well the only alternative is Valley Parade, and that proved pretty disastrous last time. Plus the ground is too short anyway and cannot be extended. If it was that or extinction, I guess it would have to be that - but I doubt it would be sustainable tbh. The options for developing the existing stadium were closed down firstly when a big Tesco with non-food was turned down (even though others were allowed in similar if not even more sensitive locations shortly aftrerwards) and then the great recession killed any chance of a sporting village option. And no plans for a new stadium anywhere else have ever got anywhere - there just is not the money anywhere.

And if it transpires the rugby creditors and HMRC do not get paid in all this, I will be angry. And will not object to any reasonable punishment.


Thanks again for all that.