think your missing my point not aiming at Bradford Bulls I'm aiming at the RFL and from now on will be known as the RFL Bulls

Peter Hood stated categorically tonight

6 - The RFL had made it clear to Bradford that they did not want to see Odsal lost to the game.

7 - (As I told people) the deal was signed in December. In fact, the heads of agreement were signed in November. The timing of the announcement was agreed to be as determined by the RFL. The Gleeson (latest) scandal meant the RFL did not announce it earlier.

8 - That excuse of a report appearing in the Sun was total nonsense. No idea where it came from other than maybe lazy reading of internet forums... point 7 anyway proves how factually nonsense it was.

9 - The Bulls sub-lease runs for "decades".

10 - The Bulls are responsible for maintaining and running the stadium.

11 - (As I told people) it is a standard property sale and leaseback.

12 - Had the OSV gone ahead, then the Bulls would have transferred ownership of the site to the stadium company, off whom they would have rented the stadium. Nothing any different - indeed, the current arrangement is much more in line with the plans than the situation before the RFL purchase.

13 - The wording of the press release, and the use of the word "predatory", was entirely down to the RFL. The Bulls had no input.

14 - When the current recessionary period is over, he expects ALL the "stakeholders" (Bulls, RFL AND the Council) to sit down and agree a development plan going forward, almost certainly using external private sector money.

15 - (As I said) The RFL has access to funding streams and sources that no RL club could have. He specifically pointed out that Richard Lewis is the current chairman of Sport England...


Brought to you in the interests of objectivity.

ps. 9 clubs turned up at the RFL meeting that approved the Stobart sponsorship deal for the RFL. A further one attended by telephone. The French and three other (unnamed) clubs did not. Those clubs voted in favour by majority. Bulls voted in favour. So did Pies, Wire and Stains. To buy that amount of national advertising - and it was the national advertising that made it a "no-brainer" (his words) would cost £2m p.a. And it gives club sponsors national advertising.

Is that meant to make anyone feel better?

For me, even accepting that large parts of it are undoubtedly spin, it raises more questions than it answers; to be quite honest though, they're questions that I can't be d to ask - it's done, you're saved, bully for you.

Personally speaking, I've moved on.

here you go mate. i will tell you something.its common knowledge to most of the players in super league including the bulls that if the rfl hadn't have stepped in you would have been in administration within 2 week. thats how close it got mate. dress it up however you want. ask your own players if you are on speaking terms with any of them and i am sure that they will tell you. i am not saying it is a good or bad thing i am just saying that was the position

I merely gave you a report.

It's a bit odd though that no one seems to have any recollection of any player ever having said anything remotely along those lines. Even those close to individual players.

When would this "within 2 week" run from?

Let me get this right, though? Club has just received the cash from over 10,000 season tickets. Club will have received first tranche of Sky etc money from RFL and money from sponsors etc. Club has no major external borrowings. Club has just come through the traditionally lean final quarter. Yet club is on verge of administration. How does that work?

This

If the Bulls dis not need intervention from the RFL, Then WHY ???????

I wouldn't claim to know whether you were close to going into administration or not, but it is widely accepted throughout the game that Bradford are/were struggling financially (if I could be d to re-read this entire thread I might even find an acknowledgement of that fact from yourself).

Your Chairman is hardly going to admit this publicly is he? That'd be almost as likely as Dickie Wright acknowledging that he can't see Glasshoughton getting built within this particular franchise period.

Personally, I'm glad you've been rescued if that's what it needed but don't dress it up as something it isn't. I wouldn't want to see any club go into administration, it's not good for the game (although I accept it did do us some good in giving us a fresh start).



It looks like we're never going to agree on this and you will rightly defend your club to the hilt as I would do mine. What I don't understand is the rock solid defence of the games governing body who prove themselves to be incompetent at every opportunity.

Because it's quite clearly good business for the Bulls to move off paying a peppercorn rent to the council to paying a market rate rent to the RFL when they were at absolutely no risk whatsoever.....honest guv..


If Bradford didn't need the money, and they had a long lease which meant they couldn't be removed from Odsal then why would you drastically increase your outgoings at this time??? Why not wait until such time as the RFL could manage to fund this so-called National RL home and then do it??
Perhaps Adey could ask Mr Hood these questions and see what answer he gets.

Why did the RFL step in and buy Odsal?

The answer is simple. There were people interested in the land that Odsal stands on. 93% of shares in the Bulls are held by people NOT on the board. Therefore, if those people who just wanted to turn a profit on land came in, bought the Bulls and moved them out, they'd have got a prime piece of real estate with motorway links right outside for far, far less than market value. The Bulls held the lease yes, but there was nothing to stop them being moved out.

The RFL deal means that anyone now looking to buy the Bulls will be doing so for love of the club and the sport, which is surely a good thing

I've answered the point in the quote, but i want to make one thing clear. I 100% cannot blame any Bulls fans in believing what they are being told, we have all been there and cling onto what we can, we know that more than most.
My views are impartial and objective, make of them what you will, but they are made without any emotion, which being a Bulls fan you will obviously suffer.
Whatever happens, i think you are wasting your time trying to preach on here, that the sky is blue over Odsal, because few will believe you.
If both parties had come out with, what most people BELIEVE to be the truth, many would have understood or at least been sympathetic, but the RFL would have looked contradictory.
FWIW the paradox would have been in the fact that BECAUSE we were not financially supported, by the RFL we are now in a better place than we would have been if they had helped financially.
I completely understand that we ran the risk of going pop, but we didn't and that is in no small way thanks to some assurances given by the RFL to possible investors at the time, they got rid off Richardson at the same time we did, and were equally relieved.
That would have been an option for The Bulls too, but one that either they were not prepared to, or able to do, i don't know why, we shall see if that turns out to be a short or long term fix, and I am sure there will be more twists and turns in this story yet.
Whatever i shall look forward to the Bulls visit to BV and perhaps a visit to the new home of the RFL later on in the season, it will certainly add to the spice!

Forgive me for being stupid but if I had the money and I bought 93% of the shares in Bradford Bulls what is there to stop me moving them out of Odsal, no matter who owns the lease???

Nothing, but you would have to pay up on the remainder of the contract, which sounds like it could be a lot of ££££££.

A new owner moving the club out of Odsal before this deal would have had to pay a bit over £1m to the council for the reversionary payment under the odsal Settlement agreement. Nothing under the 150-year lease as far as we are aware.

Now, they would have to pay that PLUS we presume a very large settlement with the RFL - it was said last night that our lease is for "decades". But, more to the point, there is now far far less reason for a non-RL "predator" to seek to acquire that 93% - since they would not now be getting the only thing they really want - the land.

rlSee here for stuff from the horse's mouth.rl A lot of that in there was in response to questions I sent in, and they specifically included (relevant) ones like:

1. Some fans, and some commentators, have alleged or implied that this is a “bailout” by the RFL. How does the club respond to that charge, and how important was the financial aspect of the transaction?
2. Who were the “predators” whose attentions were alluded to in the press release, and why exactly where they seen as such a threat to the club?
3. Had this deal not been done, would the club have stayed at Odsal? COULD the club have stayed at Odsal?
4. It has been stated that there are no immediate plans for development at Odsal. What is envisaged for the longer term? Will we ever see a new stadium at Odsal, or maybe a new stand or so, or will it be left substantially as it is now?
5. What are the benefits for the RFL in taking over Odsal? What is in it for them?
7. When was the deal to assign the Odsal lease to the RFL actually agreed and signed (as opposed to announced)?
11. What is the club doing with this one-off receipt? Will any be spent on players or facilities or paying off debts or other liabilities, or will it be put in the bank?
12. Who is responsible for paying for repairs and maintenance? The Bulls or the RFL?
13. Who is responsible for managing the stadium? The Bulls or the RFL?
14. Who gets the income from food and drink concessions and from any corporate or other activities (like the “Kings Speech” filming or the “Cabinet on the Road”? The Bulls or the RFL?
15. Do the Bulls retain ownership of the Coral Stand as a fixed asset, or has ownership of it passed to the RFL as part of the deal?
17. What is your response to those fans of other clubs who allege that this transaction creates a conflict of interest for the RFL come next Franchising time, since – as they would argue – the RFL is hardly likely to deprive its own tenant of a SL licence?

- all of which the club provided an answer to. The extent to which those answers would satisfy the Sceptics as well as the Believers, I obviously could not say. But I hope you will see that I DID try and put to the club the key issues that you lot on here and some others had been getting animated about.