I don't like these comparisons with Wakey, Cas & Saints. I can see it from your point of view how it seems the RFL are saving Bradford.

Bradford would have never ever been kicked out of SL because of their stadium. They have superb attendances, a great junior development & state of the art training facilties. If the RFL had have let the council sell odsal, we would have been forced to move to Valley Parade, attendances would have plummeted, the Bulls would have been financially crippled by the rip off merchants at VP (Look what has happened to Bradford City) and the RFL would have lost one of it's biggest members, thus affecting future sponsorship, TV deals etc.

The RFL haven't bailed Bradford out. The will get money in RENT thus making money. If the RFL have brought Saints, Wakey, Cas stadiums, how would they have made any money from it.

I can understand why some other fans are upset, but i think your clutching at straws and wanting a conspiracy theory.

Sorry mate, but they have bailed out the Bulls, the circumstances at the other clubs you mention are totally different , but in these days of franchising and stadium criteria, this is a massive advantage to Bradford

Your first paragraph describes a bail out.

As I see it, nothing has changed for Bradford, apart from who they make the cheque for the rent to.

They might have a more secure future and a more understanding landlord, but they haven't been bailed out of anything.

Yes they have. They have been bailed out of becoming homeless and unable to pay higher rent elsewhere.

I think we can all agree that's an evil that tarnishes the game.

We could do with some clarity as to what the RFL have actually bought, and need to make a separate distinction between the land (lease) and the stadium (bricks and mortar). If the RFL have just bought the leasehold then there is no payment to the Bulls. However, if they have actually bought the 'stadium' then I'd assume that those tangible constructs on it (grandstands, offices, bars, corporate boxes etc) were assets of Bradford Bulls and as such they will have received payment for them accordingly.

It might be the amount on that cheque that has changed as well, it has been suggested they were paying a ' peppercorn ' rent, but had to maintain the stadium, now we are told they will be paying a proper rent, but who will maintain the place?

The total costs have risen, there is still the maintenance costs, but now there will be interest charges as well

That money has to come from somewhere? ,

So Football has Wembley.

Union has Twickenham.

We have Odsal, happy days.

This is wrong, so wrong what kind of precedent is this setting???
I don't care the ground has history so did Station Road, Watersheddings, Thrum Hall, Central Park and Knowsley Road but all these clubs at those grounds had to do it the hard way and raise their own money to fund new grounds or move to grounds shared with football clubs and improve them.
Plus how come they have done this with OUR money, that is the fans and other clubs money when the RFL won't even give Championship clubs any of the Premier Sports money, it stinks.

No coincidence that Fat Controller comes from Bradford then never heard of a 'vested interest'???

Plus the ground was a public owned 'assset' are the local council taxpayers happy they have subsidised (yet again didn't the Council pay for the improvements a few years ago and that block at the far end?) the RFL and a professional rugby club? Any public asset should be put on the open market when being cashed in, especially in the current climate of budget cuts and services being cut, did the Council get the best price for this site or its true value???

What are the RFL going to do with the ground now plus who and how are any jobs and improvements that need doing going being paid for,.
There are lots and lots of questions but like the North Korean regime the RFL won't tell anybody anything its a closed shop. How I wish we could do a Freedom of Information request on the RFL.

I absoluteley hate the RFL even more now this deal stinks.

Explain why the Bulls would have become homeless?

When we had a very very long lease for a peppercorn rent, which in all practical aspects was the same as holding the freehold.

Any change of ownership of the freehold is unlikely to have had any bearing on the Bulls, in the same way that if you "own" a long-leasehold house a change of who you pay the ground rent to does not affect your occupancy.

Go and find your dummy mate, you're embarrassing yourself.

The RFL don't help out the heartland clubs.


Oh wait, yes they do. But still get criticised! Good old RLFans.

And one of your competitors - keighley - are merrily signing players while the RFL 'own their ground'. Are the RFL transparent over financial arrangements?

Did you miss the word 'seemingly' in my post in your haste to criticise? It was there to indicate how things may [iappear[/i at first glance. And since the press statement already includes the information that the Bulls will be paying rent I can only assume that you were trying to be facetious.

No matter what the commercial arrangements may be there is clearly scope for the appearance of favour when the body setting the criteria is also the landlord and in a position to either do the work as part of the tenancy agreement or set the costs for the Bulls to do it. It's a situation that will need careful handling given the suspicion which a large section of fans exhibits towards anything the RFL do.

Er from what I hear they only have a part share at Keighley and come on its probably peanuts compared to what must be millions to buy Odslum??
Its wrong on both counts. The game is struggling and most teams below SL cannot even afford an U23s, there are only 6 clubs running one this year!
But hey you live in your RFL is great bubble.

If you had a lease with a peppercorn rent, the council could not sell the stadium

Unless you agreed to let them,

But why do that and end up paying more rent than you previously had to?

Your logic doesnt stack up, if the stadium has been sold/purchased, your costs will rise, unless the buyer is willing to stand some of that extra, if so your club are being subsidised by other clubs and other clubs fans, simple as

Typical SL fan, you don't even respond with a meaningful debate you just insult.
This is bad news as the RFL are using money and must be millions from ALL clubs to do this and have shown a bias towards one club and in the world of franchises this is morally wrong but the RFL have no morals do they?

This is not a bit of help this is huge come on they must have paid a lot of dosh to get the ground off the Council plus are Council taxpayers in Bradford happy about this? If the ground was worth more as a private development they should have sold it off and cashed in their chips in the days of budget cuts and provided the Bulls a ground at another site surely?

Explain how the council tax payers have lost out in any way under this arrangement?

Explain how much of "your" money the RFL have paid out? If, as I suspect, the RFL have taken over the long leasehold from the Bulls, then that by itself is hardly likely to have cost the RFL anything, and the council's situation is little-changed. After all, what were they actually buying? The real interest has to be in the "underlease" and the terms of that. And that lease has been stated to be on commercial terms.

Explain why the Bulls giving the council a charge over assets is detrimental to council tax payers?

The "block at the end" - the Coral Stand - was built and paid for by the Bulls after they took on the long lease. It is in the balance sheet as a fixed asset. Explain how it was the council that paid for it?

The 1986 improvements were done by the council for the Speedway world cup. In exchange for benefiting from them, the Bulls were obliged to hand over the food and drinks concession rights - and the income from them - to the council.

Wigan and Saints (two you indicated) owned their grounds. Wigan sold out to Tesco to pay off debts and now rent a ground. Saints had McManus' largesse to thank. BOTH new stadia were heavily funded by Tesco developments - as was Warrington's. As was OURS going to be - except local politics and the plight of Bradford City put paid to OUR Tesco development.

Explain what the open market value of a hole in the ground with a big shed is, when it is let on a peppercorn for 150 years or whatever it was? Clue: fekk all, since there is no appreciable future income stream and no prospect of sale for development with the long leaseholder in situ.

And explain why you seem to have been taken in by all the spin about saving historic grounds?

Or would you rather get in a paddy about what you THINK has happened, instead of commenting objectively on what likely HAS happened? And that the agreements regarding the stadium are almost certainly NOT the central issue here.

If you look on the other thread you will realise that the RFL act as the lease guarantor for Keighley, between the Cougars and the stadium owners, the Co oP

They dont actually own the stadium

So are you are saying that the line being peddled by the rfl about protecting against predators is absolute poop, as even if someone else had bought Odsal they would have had to honour the Bulls lease. This being the case then the only deduction to make is that the Bulls are in the crapper and this is a bail out without directly providing the cash upfront.

We can safely assume, I think, that the Council wanted to sell Odsal. This situation would not have arisen if they had not wanted to sell, yes? The impression given by the RFL's own statement is that the club approached them (the RFL agreed) and that the purchasing interest was hostile ('predatory'). Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that whoever wanted to purchase Odsal did not have any interest in honouring any deals worked out between the Council and the club. Either that or the Council was seeking to sell the freehold and thus terminate any arrangements between themselves and the club. That can all be gleened from the RFL's statement.

So assuming the RFL has been accurate in its wording of the statement, the club sought the assistance of the RFL, which the RFL duly provided, thus securing the club's existence. The club must have perceived some kind of threat to its existence for it to approach the RFL at this point. Had it not felt threatened then either it would have come to an agreement with its new landlords or sought alternative accommodation. However, it has done neither of those things and the RFL has invested financially in the club by purchasing Odsal (either freehold or leasehold).

I doubt very much that the Bulls would opt to stay at Odsal for sentimental reasons. I'm quite sure the club would like new, safe, modern facilities. Therefore it is safe to assume that the threat was financial; that the club could not afford alternative accommodation or indeed a different rent deal with a new landlord.

Hence it is my belief that the RFL has bailed out the Bulls and in doing so has made a mockery of the licensing system in a major way.

I'm a York fan.

If you hate the RFL so much, go and watch another sport. You won't be missed.

Where do you get 'millions' from? Land prices ain't what they used to be and in this case it comes with a sitting tenant with a very long lease. It's also, as has been pointed out at some length, not the most commercially attractive plot to be turned into anything else. The RFL could easily have got a very good deal from BCC. And they have income from the rent.