Starbug, you just demonstrated my point exactly.

You are just locked on "transmit" all the time. You don't seem to have a button for "receive".

I explained to you why you "buy" a long leasehold. There was nothing wrong with the RFL's wording. But, as usual, you chose not to listen. They were not being "less than truthful". They were not even being particularly disingenuous. They have bought the 150 year lease.

I explained to you why - as far as I was aware, and with my reasons - this appeared to be a transaction between the Bulls and the RFL, not the RFL and the Council. And I explained to you about the long lease. But, as usual, you chose not to listen.

I answered your questions. But, again, you chose not to listen.

I demonstrated how this quasi-loan - for that is surely what it is, and quite clearly because the club needs the money - set no real precedent, given the RFL's long history of engagement in clubs with financial issues. Like the loan to Crusaders. But you chose not to listen.

I have indicated quite clearly that, despite the spin being put on it, the purpose of the transaction had to be to provide support to the club. But you chose not to listen.

I accused you of nothing beyond a refusal to listen. You variously called me thick, stupid and a liar because I did not agree with you. I think our readers can judge who is what?

Incidentally, if I had to guess at why the Bulls are in this predicament: HMRC, and the tax investigations into historic image rights and the like. Go ask sugar daddy Pearson at Hull how much he had to settle, by way of example? Around £1m or so, was it not?

Wakey London and Widnes (if it affected them) are free of past liabilities because they all went bust and the taxman - us -was the biggest loser. Hull FC we know about. Leeds are owned by a sizeable plc. Wigan, Saints, Wire, Hudds all have rich owners. So, to a lesser extent do Salford and HKR, although I suspect they were on the periphery of the investigations in terms of scale. Cats don't count. Cas might be the only other club in anything like our situation - exposure for years past, no sugar daddy or equivalent - but I suspect Bulls had a much bigger exposure. Remember we are going back quite a few years here.

Is any other club at such risk of being wiped out by a big tax settlement? With the possible exception of Cas, I suggest from the above probably not. In terms of tax exposure, that makes the Bulls situation somewhat unique? And, if my guess is right regarding why the sudden need for cash on this scale, so then would the circumstances of the RFL support be.

Oh, and Gutterfax - if my guess is right, you are in no position whatsoever to talk given your club folded owing £1/2m AT THE TIME to HMRC, and who knows how much more might have been assessed had the original club still been in existence. Glass houses, mate.

The London Clubs total reported debts were in the region of 3 million after 100% assessment by HMRC....the Government were the only ones who got "burnt" and that was because they wouldn't accept a staggered payment scheme...the remaining losses were accepted by the majority shareholder....who incidently, continues to pump his own money (millions a year) into our club without getting on his hands and knees begging for handouts and using a percieved "historical value of the club and the ground" as reasons for a bail out of a club that has no right to be in financial difficulties.

The RFL have done what they will do, for reasons that they believe are acceptable....fine, but don't whine like a b1tch when your club and its fans get some grief for what smells like a bail out, looks like a bail out and in all probability, tastes like one too.

Er, you will find that there aren't many Bulls fans whining. Funnily enough. In fact, we think it's great. Genuine fans of the game are pleased enough that the RFL is looking after the interests of the game, whatever reservations there may be about the exact method, and the rest who like yourself, would rather see the game die a death than the RFL help another club, are left sick as Blackpool donkeys. That's a win-win situation for us, and therein lies the reason why the sound you hear is not bitches whining, but Bulls fans laughing at you and your ilk bleating like a stuck pig.

Except you miss the point completely.

London went bust well before all the HMRC investigations kicked off.

Had the club NOT gone bust, who knows what tax assessment the club would now be facing for image rights, EBTs, pensions and whatever else going back to the start of the noughties?

By going bust, London not only deprived HMRC of around £1/2m of tax that was already deducted from employees or collected in VAT - and so WAS NEVER THEIR MONEY ANYWAY (that is theft in my book) - but they ALSO
deprived HMRC of the opportunity to pursue an action on the scale they have been pursuing against most other SL club

Maybe Bulls should just go bust likewise, and then rise up again likewise? Free of debt and obligation to HMRC? Or maybe, just maybe, they should find a way to stay in business and actually settle the liabilities? The honourable way. And without the help of a rich owner.

And anyway, the only people who seem to be whining and bìtching are those from other clubs, too often without a clear understanding of all the available facts.

Er...I entered this debate with a tongue in cheek post regarding bolted on licences and the norvern mafia looking after their own........even after the standard "you lot went bust in 2005" response was rolled out, nothing other than tongue in cheek again.....but you now try and claim some imaginary high ground bu painting me as an anti RFL poster......when in fact, nothing can be father from the truth.
As I said, I have no doubt the RFL have their reasons for doing what they have done and in the end, the truth will come out, but the fact remains, until "said truth" does come out, expect a certainamount of "banter and winding up" to be headed the way of Bulls Fans.
BTW....how, after I applauded the iniatives of the Bulls last year in attracting fans back you can now attept to post me as someone who "would rather see the game die" is a tad dramatic.......Bradford Bulls are a Team in the ESL........they are not the game...HTH

Firstly, London went belly up with 2 main debts...one to HMRC and the other to the Major Shareholder. The entire amount owed was what was up for negotiation with HMRC and as a result of HMRC rejecting the offer of staggered payments, the decision was taken to do exactly what HMRC told the club to do......FOLD. They did what HMRC told them to do........not theft. If it had been theft, I think dibble and the associated court offices would have become involved....but cool story bro nonetheless



You've been posting long enough on these boards to know that if a club do anything that isn't normal, then they will be the subject of countless threads and theories.....don't act so surprised

If you deduct tax and NIC from an employee, on behalf of HMRC, and then do not pay that tax over, you have spent money that was never yours and you effectively held on trust for the period allowed before you have to pay it. In any other situation, you would call that theft, would you not?

If you collect VAT on your sales, on behalf of HMRC, and then do not pay that VAT over, then same again is it not?

I have yet to see anyone put up a convincing argument as to why using someone else's money to pay your own bills, and then not being able to pay that money back, is anything other than theft.

Not a dig at London alone, btw - applies to every business that fails owing PAYE and/or VAT.

I'll agree with you totally on your second point, mind!

On the first point...it's more a Moral issue than one of legality..........but I see where you're coming from

I thinks its good to see the money coming back in, its the right time to buy property.

Its a bug arena and when time is rights and grants areabout they make it a place for RL home.

Classic typo my man

Not the point is it you stupid person.

To me it looks like a loan secured against Odsal end of. Absolutely no intention of the RFL ever owning or redeveloping the Stadium. So all the dreamers and SL fantasists back in your box. The Bulls are now on life support and will have to work very hard to ever get back to recent glories and TBH I doubt they will.

As a Wakey fan may I point out to other Wakey fans that we have indeed received loans from the RFL in the past. Last time we asked I couldn't blame the RFL for saying no and as it happened it worked out well.

Adeybull, while it would seem you are correct, it is a cash bail out to save your club, that isnt how the RFL have termed it , no surprise there then, but you havent mentioned the implications with regards the future licensing situation, you do have effectively now a guaranteed SL licence

And ultimatly that is wrong

As I said SL just keeps getting better and better

They have not bought it have they. If you believe the nonesense you've just typed I despair about the naivety and hypocrisy of RL fans.

Fair call mate. I'd not disagree with that.

I think you talk nonsense most of the time Starbug, but I do admire how you can make every single RL story into a negative conspiricy.

Eventually this will turn from 'RFL buy Odsal' to 'It's not fair on Leigh'

On that specific point of future licensing, if the result was to guarantee the club a licence then that would inded be unfair. Albeit hardly more unfair than the way "development" clubs got a guaranteed licence?

But the stadium is only a limited part of the licensing criteria. This action does not directly change the club's ranking against the other criteria, against which (other than on-field performance) the club already rates pretty highly. Nor of course should it directly affect on-field performance. All it does is seemingly guarantee we will still have an old, acceptable-but-ideally-needs-to-be-better stadium to play in rather than say sharing the more modern VP. How does that guarantee us a SL place? We could be binned and the RFL could appoint another franchisee to play at Odsal, and pay the RFL a commercial rent.

Can we please not turn this into another blame-London thread? There are probably enough dobbers reading this to start confusing the issues and their conspiracy theories will become even more fantastic. This is about Bradford.

I have no problem with the bail-out, and I'd love to believe that one day the RFL will have/obtain enough cash to develop a national RL stadium. But I think this has been handled in an awfully cack-handed way. The fact is that there's ammunition here for those who want to see conspiracies, and particularly distrust the RFL. This is a bail-out for Bradford. It needs to be openly acknowledged as such, and the consequences of that decision faced openly. Saying that it's some sort of investment in a historic ground, or saving Bradford from a bizarre private-sector compulsory purchase is nonsense, and it's transparent nonsense. By misleading over motives, the RFL are pouring petrol on to the paranoid fires of a certain type of League-Express letter-writer. They should be open, and state that this has been done to save Bradford from collapse, and while it's a loss now, they hope that this will be a turning point allowing Bradford to reshape their finances and develop a more stable existence, with the possibility of returns either through rent or development in the longer-term.

Two final points :

1) I hope to God the RFL lined up all the other club managements behind this before they did it. I'm sort of assuming they did it this way because there was a by-law or regulation which prvented them from just bunging one member club lots of cash, rather than because they were trying to hide what it was from the other clubs.

2) I've read so many comments on this board, and in the RL press, from people who style themselves RL fans, endlessly banging on about how the RFL is wrong to spend any cash at all south of Doncaster, and how it's ridiculous that we should even allow people who say "barth" rather than "bath" to watch or play our game. They nearly always state that while they're not opposed to spreading the game (of course, how could we ever think such a thing?), the RFL should look after the interests of the "heartland" clubs first. Well here you go people. This is the RFL offering the biggest direct help package to a club that it has ever offered, and it's as heartland as it comes. So I shall look forward to all those "fans" writing here and in the RL press about how pleased they are that the RFL has stepped in to save such a historic and traditional club.

Similarily to Mr Haggerty and despite what many think of me and my opinions on here , if this is a loan from the RFL to protect the demise of Bradford [ possibly due to the image rights issue then fine , the RFL have covered themselves by taking the lease as callateral to ensure it shouldn't end up being a total loss

But once again it is the pathetic attempt to cover it up , using the ' Historic Odsal ' disguise

Odsal isn't historic , the name is , the stadium isn't , we no longer have the historic Wmbley , it is just the name ,

So why try to hide the truth , it took all of a few hours for it to surface

So Bradford were in the brown smelly stuff , the sports governing body has helped them out , there are implications to it , both for other clubs and the licencing process

Does it affect my club ? , no , am I allowed an opinion on it ? , yes , was it ultimatley the right thing to do ? , yes

But stop trying to hide everything , we are plainly not as stupid as you think we are , and assuming that just makes you look more stupid than you actually are

Your a pompous git at times

but you're not wrong on this.

I wish Bradford all the best, most clubs have found themselves in this state ay one time or another or near permanently in my own clubs case and it's not nice. No idea what London have to do with this and I'm sure as hell not a friend of the great experiment.

In this case the RFL is doing it's job in a sound manner - so why the need for the ludicrous spin I really don't get other than maybe they can't admit that even in the modern age of SL a flagship club can falter badly. Now that's a bit sad.

My only reference to London (inter alia) was in pointing out that this is hardly the first time the RFL have helped a club, and that the help can be far wider than just direct financial.

Incidentally, this looks increasingly like a commercial deal - RFL pay Bulls a capital sum up-front, in exchange for the right to future annual rentals - off ANY tenant, of course. It may well meet the Bulls' immediate needs, but at the expense of the future. Looks and walks and quacks to me very much like a normal commercial "sale and lease back" . Sell it for cash up front and pay rent in future.

hardly a "bail-out" there, then? Just a win-win for all parties (except the likes of those who seemingly wanted us out of Odsal so they could get hold of the Odsal site from the council and redevelop it). And as long as RL is played at Odsal, the RFL are guaranteed a future income stream.

So, basically the RFL have bailed Bradford out, I don’t have a problem with that, jeez, they did the same with Crusaders, which to the more realistic of us, was just suicidal.

However, by purchasing the lease, they have made a precedent and also the club are now gold-plated regarding future licensing. I would have been more at ease if they (The RFL) had just loaned Bradford the money.

Er...if it is a reasonably commercial sale-and leaseback, it can't be a "bailout".

As for precedents, I could argue that the situation regarding Odsal is pretty unique, lending itself to a pretty solution. Others would doubtless disagree.

That's only true if the RFL have taken over the upkeep of the stadium. All the information released so far doesn't seem to support that idea.

The timing and apparent rushing through of this deal makes me wonder if Bradford are the first of the big SL clubs to have the HMRC image rights payment demand drop on the mat ?

But Pearson at Hull would likley contend for that one.

As I said about 800 posts back, Bulls are PROBABLY the only club with a: big bill and b: no rich owner/funds in bank to pay it. That likely makes the Bulls' situation fairly unique, and therefore the solution (if such it indeed is) equally so?