At the inception of SL we were amongst a number of clubs unfairly booted out because we would not merge. We won the right back where everyone should; on the pitch. Most of this bitching we are seeing here comes down to the sad day when who plays in what league was altered to being decided in board rooms. In my view it will be the slow death of our game. As one poster states, back in the 60's Wakefield and Bramley assistedBradford in their hour of need. Now we argue and see untransparent and potentially damaging decisions made regularly that pull the game apart. This is all gross mismanagement of a sport. Will the FA or FL be buying Fratton Park from Portsmouth, or would they buy it's lease and part administer the club if that was the scenario? You don't see this happening in fair and serious sports, any of it - today, SL franchising, the 1995 inception disgrace that affected us, the treatment of Keighley being denied promotion twice, yes even Halifax's treatment this year...and much, much more. It has been wrong from the start so today does not surprise me.

Oh dear.

Guys, after some pretty long - and very interesting - chats tonight, I now have a much clearer understanding of what this is all about, and what lay behind the RFL's decision.

Funnily enough, it transpires that what the RFL said in the press release was pretty well as it is. And, whilst this action almost certainly saved the Bulls from having to move to the hell hole that is Valley Parade, as a poor junior partner in a relationship that would likely have seen the slow but steady demise of the club, it was far from a rescue. What WAS rescued - from the developers - was the stadium, and its superb location for the future.

Oh, and the reason the RFL did not look to buy YOUR ground was because your illustrious former chairman had already sold it. Simple as that. So quit complaining at the RFL - the responsibility lies much nearer home.

The RFL have made a catalogue of appalling decisons over the last few years, this being the latest, so I'm not confident they know much really, As I said, hate the bitchin, but the governing body of a sport that ought to be duty bound to be impartial should not be, in effect, entering into a business arrangement that ties them and their interests together like this, with one of it's member clubs, whatever this sell, rent back, lease or whataver else it may turn out to be, is. It just cannot, under any circumstances. Do something like this for one, you have to do it for all. How do judge equity in varying situations? The questions go on and on and on. Big error of judgement in my view

Have posted a lot on this and am pretty ticked off about it like many on here, but would point out that, thus far, we are singularly apoplectic about this looking at the other sites. Maybe the odsal mud hasn't hit the fan yet, but I am beggining to get the feeling that maybe we should keep our powder dry for now? Focus on our own house? We won't change the RFL and their behaviour that is for sure.

Someone's been blowing smoke up your ar5e Adey and given your position, you'll no doubt have been a very receptive audience.

What the RFL said in their press release was NOT 'pretty well as it is'; if they gave two 5h1ts for 'evocative' RL grounds, why the hell have they been shutting them down for a number of years? Do you believe for example, that if the ill-fated sports village had ever come off, the RFL would have ridden in on their white charger to stop the builders filling in your hole in the ground?

They've rescued your club because it set the standard for SL many years ago and has been dining out on that ever since, despite operating out of a slum and being financially mismanaged for a number of years; they've compounded that poor decision by making a clumsy attempt to spin the story, showing their usual level of contempt for the sport, its fans and a large chunk if its member clubs, by working from the assumption that we're all too stupid to see what's really going on.

Oh dear nothing - you've been rescued from financial ruin by the sports governing body; man up, admit it and stop the smug attempts to perpetuate their lies. RFL Bulls it is I guess, and you only need ask a Shudds fan how long it takes to shake that kind of thing off.

You seem to have assumed a massive point here. Wakefield never wanted the RFL to 'buy' our ground we asked for a loan to bail the club out whilst the NM decision was made. The RFL have not bought Odsal by the way as I read it its the lease. Wakefield were leasing their ground now explain the difference between how the RFL treated Bradford to Wakefield?

you seam to make it out like its jealousy like that other simpleton far from it

I would of been ashamed if I had made comments like I have read on this forum,
would you not think it would be wise to just keep quite rather than brag about the clubs win fall.

If you had a 150 year lease with about 145 years unexpired then your position was secure. No developer could have bought the freehold from the Council (if the Council were the owner) and thrown you out unless they bought you out of the lease.

The RFL saved you from yourselves because if you hit severe financial difficulties (say you owed money to the HMRC and another Club) you would have been forced to sell the lease to a Developer maybe and made yourselves homeless or had to move to Valley Parade. In doing so the RFL have secured your future at Odsal.

As Bren2k has said someone has been blowing smoke up your bottom. We all have a good idea of whats gone on and all people want is the truth to be told and not some lame Fairy tale.

As I have said Bradford have done nothing wrong, they have pulled off a fantastic bit of business and I say well done - we would have done the same if we could.

Guys I have to say some of us comparing the 2 situations of trin and northern (sorry cant help being a traditionalist) seems to be convieniently ignoring a number a salient factors. Firstly in the latter days of the richardson era we were not run with sufficiently sound business practices to justify any one with finance investing in us. Our present owner could have done so at the time but chose not to - as indeed would I had I the money. Secondly BV was not owned by a cashg strapped public body under pressure to cut, sell assets and make people redundant.

The RL higher ups would rightly have been pilloried had thery thrown money at Trin in the latter days of the richardson era, and it would not have been in the long term best interests of the club.

I struggle however to buy the notion that developers were on the Odsall horizon - why there but no where else in the country? If they are however I would be concerned as a Northern supporter. My landlord is my boss, my boss is trying to reduce the number of clubs in the top flight close to other clubs in the top flight. My boss has the right to get rid of me if I can't operate financially well. The higher ups in my club are struggling with raising operating capital. There are potential buyers on the horizon looking to builkd on the land I tennant.

I'd like to see a bit more good grace offered to our friends at Odsall - irrespective of the circumstances fans are fans and they are not to blame for the failure of their club higher ups.

Only if they payid their bills though. If they didn't, then the lease would be up for sale along any other 'assetts' and then a free for all would have taken place.

I see nothing at all wrong from Bradford, but the RFL are now seriously compromised going forward and, even if everything they ever do in relation to Bradford is fair and clean, they will always be found with the smoking gun in their hand.

Now if the RFL had 'engineered' a third party to do this, then there would be nothing but praise for their efforts (from most anyway).

For the RFL to have acted in the best interest of the game in general, they must have to prove that the business deal they have completed was in the best interests of all parties and the game itself.
I can see how this deal is in the best interests of the Bulls, they have sold something that isn't actually theirs for a million pounds, and are going to receive staffing hand assistance too, something i remember the Crusaders receiving and they still went pop shortly after.
From the RFLs point, (when Lewis was commenting not too long ago about their not being much money in the game and the viability of a 14 team SL, since then they've lost sponsorship revenue and now a million to the bulls!!!!!) how are they going to benefit from the deal?
Are they going to make a profit on the lease that they get from the Bulls, if the Bulls were struggling before on peppercorn rates, how on earth are they going to manage with a market price plus interest lease?
Are the RFL in a position now to help other clubs who find themselves in a similar position to the bulls, and act with parity to their other members, now that their annual margin is minus £2M?
Do you trust the RFLs motives, not to the Bulls but to the game, in this decision? IMO there is way too much grey in all of this for it to be 100% legitimate, as in many other of their dealings, and can you see similarities in this deal and the Crusaders deal (ground , staffing etc) and in the end the additional costs got too much.
I know the Bulls are in a far stronger position than the Crusaders from an income point of view, but the Bulls decline has been marked, and if life is a struggle now, from a financial point of view its just got a lot harder if your daily costs have risen.
Ok your home may be safe short term, but if you cant afford the costs, are you any better off in the mid to long term?
I know when we've spoke in the past you've always been very supportive to our club and of our problems, and spoke with common sense on the wider game, so i look forward to you (as un biased as any fan can manage) reply.
Good luck to you and your club whatever, your problems are and how they (hopefully) get resolved.

I understand from posters from Bradford that the rent was a peppercorn and if so they would hardly default on that - a jar of Scwartz is not expensive but alternatives are also available.

If they did not pay other bills they would either have to sell assets such as the lease to pay the bills or face winding up.

I think most know what has happened but as I said earlier just tell us the truth and not a fairy tale.

Sorry - I meant if they were 'up the creek' - i.e. bust! The administrator would love the 'Peppercorn' bit!

And that's where I see preferential treatment.