The story about Caisley trying to get back has been around for a while. Doubt smoke but no fire. His public comments (acknowledged and persona) have done little to dispel the view. I really, really hope that does not come to pass.

For what it's worth mate (and I accept it's not a lot

) there is [ialways[/i some rumour about CC coming back, and I'd guess that as long as he keeps his very significant holding in the club, one of the rumours will prove true, eventually.

So we could be paying more rent and still be paying for the maintenance?
That changes it from a decent deal into a pretty poor one doesn't it?

isn't the forum next wednesday?

Not at all.

Since we also receive a large capital sum up front.

Logically, it should be the net present value of the future income stream for the RFL, net of any costs they will incur and whatever yield the RFL is looking for. Logically...

Yes.

But the shirt presentation evening is tonight.

Yes but there is also the shirt presentation evening tonight.

I expect the club to make some comment about the RFL deal tonight, even if it's as Adey says "we'll discuss it next week"

.

Not if the alternative was something akin to effectively going down the tubes?


Me neither. For a start, most of London is held on long leases isn't it? Technically hardly anybody there at all "owns" their house or flat. But If you have a long lease then yes basically you do buy and sell it pretty much as if you did own the land. Obviously the price goes down as the years left reduce, but I'd certainly agree that having a long lease is much nearer ownership than tenancy.


This I'm not so sure. My issue is that the reversionary interest is a public asset, and the Council simply cannot do anything with public money/assets that they couldn't financially justify to an auditor. Controls can include, for example, restrictive covenants on the use of the land.

Also,(and much more one for you than me), if the deal is that the Bulls are going from paying nothing to paying a lot, again the Council needs to justify consenting to that new lease, to their ratepayers/auditors, wouldn't they? I.e. if the ground [ican[/i generate a substantial rent from a leaseholder, the council would need to be squeaky clean and justify why they agreed to such an assignment, if there was nothing in doing so for the ratepayer?

Of course, nothing at all that m'learned friends couldn't sort out in the relevant agreements, but I would bet a lot of money that these are pretty convoluted. I know from land deals that I've been involved in with the Council that they simply cannot be seen to be causing any hole in the public purse in a deal with a commercial entity.


Interesting indeed, and has a loud ring of truth about it to me.

Shame though that Sir Peter isn't mates with that Hartnett bloke. Could've just taken him for a curry, and got a few years time to pay, at zero interest.

Quite correct , but the main reason you had to defend it was beacause like most lies , it didn't stack up , and mostly that was the point being made

I posted something of a similar line to Mr Haggerty earlier this morning , albeit a shorter version , but lost power just as it was being submitted , why the RFL have this need to treat us like mushrooms , rather than standing up and giving it straight I cannot for the life of me understand , they would garner a lot more respect if they did

The RFL have helped us ' leigh ' in our recent dealings with HMRC , agreeing to pay our 2012 central funding direct , otherwise we would have gone into Liquidation again a couple of months ago

I wish you well , but am glad we are not in SL despite what many think , a franchised SL is for clubs of your size , not for the likes of us

Having had a quick glance at the thread on the VT, many seem to be suggesting that this is a bail out. Without this, the club would have gone under. Any truth in that?

I have just pointed out on there that a commercial sale-and-leaseback arrangement can hardly be termed a "bailout".

The other option being ?

Ah!

But, in exchange for paying a lot rather than nothing each year, the Bulls get a substantial capital payment NOW. Sort of like the NPV of the future income stream.

In fact, sort of just like 2001 when we did precisely that with the surrender of the 1986 Agreement.

Do you think the council tax payers of Bradford - and especially Keighley (let alone Tigs and his load of plutocrats in Ilkley...) would be happy paying ANOTHER big lump sum to Bradford? Even if it generated future income (as opposed to reducing the council's costs like last time)?

This seems all to be one big timing effect. Get cash now; pay back later.

er...a non-commercial arrangement?

Which could have incurred much more cost , or potentially having to move

It's a bail out , sugar coat it all you want , it's a bail out , just be greatful you've got it , all you now have to do , is pay it back

So, forgive me for being simplistic Adey (I am what I am...and I've tried to follow most of your helpful posts on this) is it similar to me taking equity out of my mortaged property to pay some long standing crdit card bills, have a holiday and plan an extention, and paying more on my mortgage each month for the privalige of the wedge of cash now?

If so we could have [iasked [/iany lender/buyer, but the best (only) deal available to us in reality is the one from thr RFL so thats the deal we struck.?

I suppose whether it is a bona-fide commercial sale and leaseback depends on whether the "asset" the RFL have bought has any real value to anyone other than the Bulls.

I must say, if they have bought a long lease rather than a freehold, I struggle to see where that security value is.

Then again, it is incredibly difficult to form an opinion on this at the moment as the facts are so sp.

One thing is for certain its going to cause alot of animosity for the season ahead

Just like old times

just different reasons, I think I prefer that to the pity we've been getting lately from some quarters.

More like taking a mortgage out on your owned (free of mortgage) property. But the better analogy would be you selling that property to a friendly party, in return for paying rent. What you used the cash for is up to you.

The reason why the Bulls could not do a "sale" and (short) leaseback of the (long) lease? I suspect because the long lease was highly restrictive regarding to whom the Bulls could assign the lease (if anyone). It may well be that the RFL was pretty well the only body to whom assignment would be entertained - but I speculate.

I think it is extremely unlikley that the Bulls would have been permitted to assign the lease to say a bank. And, in any case, RL clubs are seen as such dreadful credit risks that banks generally will not lend to them (I have been told that by a leading banker), especially when the security is a sports stadium with no alternative use.

I think its Sod Hall assuaging its Guilt for the Iestyn Harris affair and allowing Caddick via the Rhinos to bleed the Bulls dry!



I love conspiracy theories

Funnily enough...

I have to agree with some of the oppo fans on here, if indeed it os a bail out then it stinks. Why should the RFL bail us out? Is it going to give the same cash to all clubs? And if indeed we are in such a precarious position as to need cash now, then wtf is going on at the club? We have been told for a while that we are on a secure financial footing. Is someone, somewhere telling porkies?
I look forward to hearing the whole story though, not just rumour.

Only from the sort of a-holes whose opinions I couldn't give a flying fart about. If people think we have done very well out of a deal with the RFL, then so what? If they were right, why "animosity" for managing to pull off something precisely like their jealousy makes it crystal clear they would do themselves. Their objection doesn't seem to be that a deal was done with us, but some notion that every club should have one.

Well, maybe they should, but has anyone asked, and been turned down? Indeed, is there any club in SL who could offer a similar deal? No. So anyone expressing "animosity" is indeed just an a-hole. They may have questions, they may have issues, they may think the RFL should not be getting involved in property deals, they may think what they want. But why would any reasonable person have "animosity" to the Bulls for looking after their own interests?