If the wage bill is £200,000 per month, thats 800k to come from somewhere, perhaps this is the right thing to do or maybe they feel confident that there will still be a Bradford team ?

I think the Tax Man ought to be questioning the sale of Odsal to the RFL.

There are a number of things that appear potentially difficult about the sale: Did Bradford and the RFL understand the poor financial state of the club, and the impending likelihood of liquidation? If so, was the sale concocted to ensure that Odsal would not be sold due to liquidation? Were fair market rates paid by the RFL, for an asset that would have had substantial value for the clubs creditors?

In other words, have Bradford illegally cheated their creditors out of money that could have been released during liquidation? And are the RFL conspirators in this potential fraud?

There may be circumstances that I am unaware of that may render my questions moot - but the situation certainly seems to be more than coincidental, in my opinion.

But the RFL don't own the stadium, they own the lease. Which I would imagine is of little value on its own.

As for it being a nonsense response from the RFL, how so? All they've said is if a newco were setup they would be able to continue with Bradfords fixtures for this season. It seems a reasonable statement to me.

All very interesting, but Odsal wasn't sold. The [ilease[/i was sold. I'm fairly certain that doesn't count as an asset any more than the players do.

Will they still receive a points deduction this season whether it be Bulls or Newco? I think there will be a lot of unhappy fans out there if the Bulls keep their license for the rest of the license period. Especially when the RFL said it was clamping down. Personally I don't mind either way as long as it doesn't adversely affect my club. Whatever the outcome, in the long run the Bradford fans will have a club to support which will come back stronger.

Well the bank certainly thought it was an asset as that's why they pulled the overdraft.

Wrong. The bank pulled the overdraft because they could - they were basically limiting their exposure to sports clubs in general and the Bulls in particular. It turns out that the lease had never been used as security in the first place.

But the banks statement said that the sale of the lease contributed to the decision to withdraw the overdraft facility. So they must have seen it as an asset.

I don't doubt that HMRC will be investigating this. Odsal couldn't be sold in liquidation, it belongs to the council. But in "buying" the lease, the RFL was getting something back for its money from previous loans to the profligate club when otherwise it would have just been another creditor getting 2p in the pound. The timing was suspicious, but the saving grace for the RFL if HMRC attempt to claw this back is that the lease is as good as worthless without a sports club playing on it.

Trebles all round.

Which brings us to the point of the Bulls fulfilling their fixtures in liquidation (aka there being a newco to give the RFL a return on their Odsal lease). This hasn't been thought through. A newco, if a sugardaddy isn't found before liquidation, stripped of assets (players), with no income (season tickets) for the rest of the season and the usual tax and incidental overheads will be losing money in 2011 at almost as fast a rate as the old Bradford Bulls. They literally will not be able to fulfill their fixtures no matter what the RFL wishfully say.

Everything I've read suggests that the Stadium was sold. Has that information been superseded?

Also, a secure tenancy can massively reduce the value of land, as it cannot be sold on for redevelopment until the lease is up or is bought out. This makes it worth a substantial amount in its own right.

The RFL own a long lease on the ground. Bradford Council own the ground and have since 1985.

When pressed they admitted that was not actually the case. They just used it as a convenient excuse to save face.

There's also the small matter of any such arrangement requiring the agreement of the majority of the other 13 SL clubs. By no means a foregone conclusion.

Maybe try using both eyes?

And maybe you could tone down your attitude.

I'm not the one who failed to do even rudimentary research before publicly suggesting that the sport's governing body and a major club might have conspired to defraud creditors including the HMRC. Which of us do you think requires the most attitude adjustment?

Pack it in the pair of you or i'll go fetch a moderator.

Oh wait ............. erm .............

I am still safe. Only one of the two promised stands has been seen so far, so I stick with what I said.

actually when I say "stand" I do of course mean a roof.

2 have been put up though, one in the corner near the block of flats and the one behind the sticks?

Open your eyes then. There are two there.

Incorrect - both temporary stands have been delivered, exactly as promised.

So - any dates in mind?

Same situation as Crusaders last year where there was a big chance the last few games would not go ahead so yes I'd say they would help others (at least SL clubs, further down I doubt it).

Have you got a link to this information as I seem to have overlooked that statement from the bank?

The point still stands. The RFL bought a secure lease from Bradford Bulls. That secure lease is valuable - a VAT liability of £250,000, as reported, would amount to a sale price of £1m+. Without the permission of the holder of the secure lease, no change of use can be made for the land owned i.e. housing developments, supermarkets, etc.

Therefore, regardless of it being a secure lease or a freehold that was sold, a significant asset changed hands at a time when it could be presumed that both Bradford Bulls and the governing body realised that liquidation for the Bulls was a real possibility.

As my original post states, my point may be moot as there may be factors I am unaware of that make the deal legitimate and without question. I was unaware that it was a lease purchased and not the freehold, but that doesn't negate my point.

Is anyone aware of any other relevant points to support or counter my point?

P.S. On the topic of research, I had googled "[url=https://www.google.com/search?q=bradford+sell+odsal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBicon_surprised.giffficial&client=firefox-abradford sell odsal[/url" and none of the top 4 or 5 results mentioned that it was the lease sold and not the freehold. It's not my fault if neither Bradford nor the RFL publicised this fact.