There is nowhere near enough information on this to generate a decent opinion as to whether this is a good deal or not.
The fact that there are a lot of (apparently bitter) fans kicking off that the RFL have done "something" to help another club just shows their cynical mentality.
These are the same people that no doubt complain that the RFL don't do anything to help heartlands clubs. Remember the Crusaders situation from last year when the RFL loaned them money secured against the ground? "The RFL aren't helping out heartland clubs". Now they've done something, it's still an issue.

So, basically some fans are just going to moan no matter what the RFL do. They could cure world hunger, and people would then complain that they didn't dedicate enough time to finding a cure for cancer. I feel sorry for someone that always has an initial reaction of "it's something bad" despite not knowing facts about it. In fact, it's even sadder that they like to make up their own facts to support this negative view!

I had to giggle at the Fax fan that had a pop at Gav for being a "typical SL fan". Says it all about this person's stereotypical approach to the world when anyone that disagrees with him must obviously be a part of the corrupt element or the I'm alright Jack SL brigade. Think that person needs to sit down, take a breather, and then wait for some more information to come out before spouting off about how the RFL is obviously corrupt and this is a bad deal without any facts to back it up!

I'll ask the people that have this "corruption" opinion of the RFL: Why do they think they have done this?

Who agreed to let whom sell?

If Bulls retained the long lease, and sold THAT to the RFL, then everything I have said makes sense. I doubt many people will believe this is anything other than some sort of support arrangement for the club (its hardly rocket science, after all!), but it would be hard to see the downsides for the RFL compared with the likely alternatives.

If, however, it were to transpire that the Bulls had previously surrendered the long lease, and kept quiet about it, then we would be talking a totally different situation.

Some people have stated that the second was indeed the situation. Will someone who has stated this please state how they know this to be fact? Genuine question here.

As would be the operating costs.

The market rent for a stadium like Odsal would have to reflect the extremely high maintenance and related costs compared with smaller or more modern stadia, as well as its usage limitations. So either its a low rent or its a landlord's repairing lease.

Are you saying that, irrespective of who owned Odsal, the Bulls had a cast iron lease on the ‘Iconic’ Stadium?

If the ground had been subject to a predatory approach, surely whoever made the said approach wasn’t some benevolent philanthropist.

Why would an organisation show interest in buying Odsal, other than for developing it, unless of course, they were planning to wait until land values rise, in ninety nine years time?

The RFL have stated that they have purchased Odsal Stadium, can you point out anywhere that anybody has stated that they have purchased a lease?

Anywhere at all?

As incompetant as the RFL are at times, I would not expect them to get it that wrong

Or it is a rent that includes the interest cost incurred by the organisation that has today stated they HAVE PURCHASED ODSALL STADIUM, NOT PURCHASED THE LEASE TO ODSALL STADIUM

Sorry for shouting but it would seem we have a deaf Bulls fan on here tonight

Yes I am. Because they did. And indeed our chairman kept telling us and the world it was tantamount to freehold (which, in substance, a long lease of course is)

So any change of freeholder should have had no effect on our status or security.

And I assumed that the "predatory approach" stuff was largely spin, since as you rightly point out, what would be the benefits of buying a freehold you could do nothing with?

Not that that in any way detracts from what must clearly be a support operation of some kind, nevertheless.

The fly in this particular ointment is if - as some people have been saying, but I have never seen indication of before - the Bulls had previously surrendered the long lease for a cash settlement. Were this indeed to be the case (and it would have had to have happened since the last accounts were signed off late September, since otherwise it would surely have had to be disclosed as a material post balance date non-adjusting event) then we would be talking a very different - and far graver - situation indeed.

So, repeating what I asked above, can anyone put any meat on the bones regarding this contention?

So, Adeybull, you are suggesting 1 of 2 things

Either the RFL are lieing ? ,or the RFL are incompetant ?

So which is it ? , dont forget Nigel is a Bradford lad

You are a fine one to talk, given that you are totally one-eyed regarding Leigh's stadium and refuse ever to listen to the numerous people who try to get you to understand that having access to a decent stadium does not of itself qualify you for a place at the top table. And that the SL Licensing criteria are far wider than just "how good is their stadium?" Deaf? You wrote the book on refusing to listen!

If you buy a house or flat that is actually a long leasehold - as quite a few are - you say you bought the house. Because that is the substance of what you did. You do not say you took over the lease.

Does anyone on here who owns a house subject to a very long leasehold - where they do not own the freehold but pay a ground rent, but otherwise it is effectively their house to do with as they please - say they took over the lease? Or do they say they bought the house or flat?

The RFL can say they have bought the stadium if the club sold them the long lease. Same as the householders in the above examples can and do.

Of course, if - as some have contended - the Bulls had already sold the lease back to the council for a sum, then we are talking something very different. Which is why I have asked for someone to back up that contention, if it were true. And, should it be true, then the club would have some serious explaining to do to its own fans, let alone anyone else's.

Something for everyone to read: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... inner.html The RFL have bought the 150 year lease for a seven figure sum. The lease is still with the Council. Apparently, there were plans from people to buy the ground and move the Bulls out to Valley Parade.

Something for everyone to read: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... inner.html The RFL have bought the 150 year lease for a seven figure sum. The lease is still with the Council. Apparently, there were plans from people to buy the ground and move the Bulls out to Valley Parade.

I am suggesting neither. As I explained above.

You will struggle to find any Bulls fan who thinks Wood is any fan of Bradford. Most believe he is too close to Leeds and Hetherington by far. This is the first time I have EVER heard it suggested he may be in any way partisan in our favour. Indeed, usually it is quite the opposite.

Can you point out where the RFL have stated they have bought a lease?

Anywhere?

I think this is the best post on the topic so far.
People are adapting their favourite conspiracy theory to fit their predjudices by interpreting the few known facts to their own ends.

I've no idea of what the details of the deal are, and so can't form a real opinion, and neither can anyone else on here. Until those details come out, all we're arguing here are our individual predjudices, be they against SL clubs, the Bulls in particular or the RFL as either a whole or just it's leadership.

A totally random idea that DOES come to mind, given the few facts we have, is just hpw popular would Bradford Council be if they made the Bulls homeless to make a few quid? Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the offer was made to the RFL - saving face for the council.
But then again, I have no evidence to support this other than that which I chose to randomly imagine.

I wasnt suggesting he was partisan , I was suggesting he was thick , I suppose you also are from Bradford

By the way, you didnt explain anything, are they lieing, or are they stupid, you are suggesting one or the other, myself on the other hand is suggesting they are telling the truth, and it is you who is either stupid, or lieing

Quote ="Fully"Something for everyone to read: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... inner.html The RFL have bought the 150 year lease for a seven figure sum. The lease is still with the Council. Apparently, there were plans from people to buy the ground and move the Bulls out to Valley Parade.'" Good man for posting that. Even though its The Sun, I suspect its not far off. So: 1 - looks like I was right about the Bulls still retaining the long lease, and that is what they have sold to the RFL. Sorry Starbug and others, but it appears you were wrong. 2 - the "predatory approaches" look like to have been to the BULLS, not to the council, to try and coerce them to surrender the long lease. 3 - looks like I was wrong when I said that the amount the RFL paid for it - paid THE BULLS for it - was likely to be negligible. If the report is to be believed, by more than just a bit! The most likely scenario now I guess is that the price the RFL paid reflects the future income stream from the new lease (as well as maybe the rights to a future RFL stadium in an ideal location). That would effectively mean that that the Bulls receive cash NOW to alleviate the current dire financial situation, a bit like a loan to be repaid in future years. You just hope the financial situation can be improved to facilitate the future payments. So the mists start to clear a bit. It seems quite possible that the RFL might have made a shrewd commercial investment here? That is a win-win for all parties involved?

Quote ="Fully"Something for everyone to read: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... inner.html The RFL have bought the 150 year lease for a seven figure sum. The lease is still with the Council. Apparently, there were plans from people to buy the ground and move the Bulls out to Valley Parade.'" Good man for posting that. Even though its The Sun, I suspect its not far off. So: 1 - looks like I was right about the Bulls still retaining the long lease, and that is what they have sold to the RFL. Sorry Starbug and others, but it appears you were wrong. 2 - the "predatory approaches" look like to have been to the BULLS, not to the council, to try and coerce them to surrender the long lease. 3 - looks like I was wrong when I said that the amount the RFL paid for it - paid THE BULLS for it - was likely to be negligible. If the report is to be believed, by more than just a bit! The most likely scenario now I guess is that the price the RFL paid reflects the future income stream from the new lease (as well as maybe the rights to a future RFL stadium in an ideal location). That would effectively mean that that the Bulls receive cash NOW to alleviate the current dire financial situation, a bit like a loan to be repaid in future years. You just hope the financial situation can be improved to facilitate the future payments. So the mists start to clear a bit. It seems quite possible that the RFL might have made a shrewd commercial investment here? That is a win-win for all parties involved?

Not really nik, my first post on the subject suggested if they had took the opportunity to purchase an asset at a bargain price with the intention to leave a legacy for the sports future, they had shown real vision, however, if they have done this to protect an individual club, in the current licencing system, then they are wrong, they have set a precedent that cannot be maintained, and compromised the licence system

Fairly simple,really

I am not from Bradford, and I am not thick. Nor, unlike you, am I deaf to any views that do not accord with my own and nor - unlike you - do I have to resort to calling other people thick, stupid or a liar.

What I AM is correct, it would seem - on this subject of the lease, at least. Which is more than can be said for you.

So the Bulls had a long lease on a stadium, they didn't need to move and nobody could force them to
They sold that lease to the RFL for a cash sum and will pay rent to the RFL, so the RFL is acting as a mortagage provider
Points to me that the Bulls are a bad risk and the RFL is risking central funds on one club's future

It would seem that you were, but also was I, the RFL really are stupid or liers, they stated they had bought a stadium, when as you say they have bought the lease, so they have bought the lease from the Bulls ( that is how I read it ) ?

I infered you were thick because you were refusing to answer simple questions asked of you

Either way, this does suggest that the Bulls do have financial problems, even with paying a peppercorn rent on Odsall, unles I am missing something here

This still compromises the RFL with regards the Bulls SL licence, if their licence was revoked it is highly unlikely they could continue to pay the rental agreed , not a healthy situation

To be honest, Adey, while you've been nothing but reasonable on this thread, this final summary seems to make clear that what's happened here is that the RFL have found a way to bung Bradford £1m+. They felt they couldn't just hand out £1m as a special dispensation because Bradford are in financial stick - we've already seen just how open-minded and sport-before-club many RL fans are - as this would cause havoc with other clubs looking for their own handout. So they had to disguise the money as a financial transaction - hence the sale of the leasehold. As you've pointed out, the lease actually had fairly small market value unless you were going to bulldoze Odsal and kick out the RL team, so Bradford couldn't have obtained any cash selling it to anyone other than the RFL. Which means that the RFL could have named their price. I suspect that price was pretty close to whatever sum Bradford needed to avoid going to the wall within a matter of weeks. I suspect that the term "market rate" for rent also hides a fair bit of sophistry. After all, if Bradford are the guaranteed sub-tenants, and thus the only people who can pay the rent, and their rent has been £1 a year, then the "market rate" for Bradford at Odsal is, er, £1 a year. I wouldn't be enormously surprised to discover that the market rate will rise, but not by as much as the maintenance costs Bradford used to pay as leadeholders, which the RFL will now pay. So Bradfod's running costs will decline, while the RFL, as well as putting out a large amount of capital, will also take on some running costs for the ground too.

I'm not coming at this from the angle of those who are already rending shirts and tearing hair. I think the governing body should do all it can to ensure the survival of all clubs, and Bradford is - like it or not - a more important club than most simply because of its size and fanbase. However, it does seem very clearly to be a bung designed at short-notice to alleviate some sort of pressing financial problem at Bradford. The guff about historic stadium and possible future development is just a smokescreen. Unfortunately, it's a smokescreen which I think will cause more trouble than if the RFL had simply come out honestly and said that it was either a bung to Bradford, or no more Bradford. People will big up some huge Nigel Wood-sized conspiracy, rather than having to face up to the grim reality that it was either this, or one of our biggest clubs disappeared. I'd rather have had the reality dose of the latter.

This is, of course, all speculation. But the way in which the deal has been done suggests crisis to me. I'm sure the details will come out son : RL is a very small, and very gossipy, world.

SL just keeps getting better and better, eh Roy

Roy, of course it is providing financial support to Bradford! You are surely right there, and in much of what you conclude, and I have said or implied as much in various posts. There could be no other sensible reason for it. It sort of walks and talks like a loan to me, regardless of its legal form.

That is why I have been at pains to point out that this hardly sets a precedent, given past interventions to support clubs with financial problems.

And maybe those who have doubted me when I said the Bulls' financial position had to be dire might doubt me a bit less now? You can see the code for this quite clearly (IMO) in Peter Hood's comments, I think?

I DO suspect there is something in the future development possibility idea - not least because Odsal is pretty well placed geographically, central for the RL heartlands and right on the M62 corridor. I doubt its all spin, but I also agree with you - and indeed the Sun report's implication - that it is highly unlikely to be the main driver.

I note Starbug is not man enough to apologise, but maybe I hope for too much?

How many times have I been asked to supply a ' link '? , well until this more enlightening article appeared I like everybody else was going off what the governing body had told us, it would seem they were being less than truthful, again

So yes I like everbody else with the information to hand was wrong, but it is no less a problem, in fact it is worse in some ways, has the Bradford management basically blackmailed the governing body into a loan/gift? ," lend us a million, or youll be a team short by May? "

One thing this does mean is that Bradford Bulls will be the first team confirmed at every round of franchising for the next 150 years at least. I mean, the RFL aren't going to reduce their tennants ability to pay their rent are they?

Still, after years of being harrassed by flat earthers on here and their theories about the RFL propping us up, it's good to see the 'northern code" looking after their own