So this is nothing more than a surreptitious bail-out.

So the RFL bought the lease from the Bulls, then they lease it back to them, do the RFL then pay a lease sum to the council? If not ,a bad deal done by the council me thinks.

No, the council get no money from the deal.

Quote ="Saint Simon"the bbc says the rfl bought the ground from the bulls, not the council, is this true? news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 709752.stm'" No. The RFL bought the Bulls' 150 year peppercorn lease (from the council) from the Bulls.

Quote ="Saint Simon"the bbc says the rfl bought the ground from the bulls, not the council, is this true? news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 709752.stm'" No. The RFL bought the Bulls' 150 year peppercorn lease (from the council) from the Bulls.

You will never know the figures, and even if you did you would likely lack the information to make that judgment. As would I. Unless you were fully aware of the RFL's future plans for the stadium.

No it is not. How do you reach that conclusion?

If it was a bailout, there would be no need to buy the stadium. There are plenty of other, far easier (and probably cheaper) ways that could have been done.

The latest Bulls accounts show the finances remain tight, but the club was solvent. Even if something had happened to mean the club required some form of financial support, it would never be on the scale that required a long-term transaction of this nature and scale.

I have explained at length earlier, if you can be bothered to read.

Rubbish.

The Bulls paid a peppercorn to the council.

The RFL will pay a peppercorn to the council.

The council is in no worse position than before.

The council may own the freehold, but for all practical purposes what the Bulls held was tantamount to freehold for the lifetimes of us and at least our children and grandchildren. Same way much of the property in London is "owned".

This too has all been explained earlier and in the press reports.

I have read your posts but remain unclear as to what you are saying - in the above post you are saying the club was solvent and didn't need to do this transaction and yet in this post below you say something very different:

The point is that the RFL have not given full disclosure of the deal and the arrangements going forward. If you have a conflict of interest, the only way to deal with it fairly is to begin with full disclosure of the conflict and then set out the conflict is going to be managed going forward. For example, any advisors appointed by the RFL to review licence applications will inevitably feel under pressure to give Bradford a good review, because the advisors are working for Bradford's landlord. How are the RFL going to deal with issues like this? We have absolutely no idea. The fact they don't seem to have thought about these issues is very disappointing.

On the Central Park front, for a while there was real uncertainty as to the future of the club. The board at the time did not want to do a deal with Whelan and there was a real risk that Wigan would end up playing at the Reebok or possibly even going out of existence. I don't recall what Tesco paid for the CP site but I do recall that the debt involved was only about £4m.

you don't understand leasehold and freehold interests.if someone had bought the bulls they would have bought the leasehold for odsal, not the freehold "the land". If a developer wanted to re develop odsal they would need the freehold which is owned by the council not the bulls.

Yes byhe freehold with sitting tenants is pretty useless. Suspicion is certain parties were interested in acquiring bulls, or at least a majority shareholding, in order to move us to vp and give up the lease. Thus making it possible for council to sell the freehold with no existing leasehold involved. effectively we've moved to take the question of the lease out of bulls directors remit. We still have to aback council a few million if we leave odsal in next 20 yrs under old lease so effectively were tied to odsal

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The point I was making is that - from what I have been assured and from what Hood anyway stated the other day in the media - the club did not need someone to come up with a "rescue" or "bailout" - it was solvent and could pay its bills. So those who view this as an RFL rescue are very wide of the mark.

That may be the situation now, but going forward the directors have a responsibility to make sure the club never gets into a situation where it MIGHT find itself in a situation where it cannot pay its bills. Having the responsibility for a big old stadium, with volatile, expensive and highly erratic maintenance costs - in an environmemnt where the club has no wealthy backer or stadium they came heir to or whatever, and has no effective financial reserves because it is having to spend to compete with all those clubs that DO - means one day soon a major unexpected cost might bring such a situation about. Therefore, in the absence of any alternative funding for the Odsal site, and once the OSV project fell through, the board looks to have concluded they would need to abandon Odsal and surrender the lease, to safeguard the company from such a risk. Something the "predators" (bit of an unfair term) will have been able to work out as well.

Therefore, we have the situation where to ensure the continuing solvency and survival of the club, they would probably have to leave Odsal. But the only game in town if they DID looked to be one that condemned the club to increasing mediocrity and a probable slow death anyway. Classic Catch-22!!

Meanwhile, provided (as I now do) you take the RFL's statements at face value, they are likely concerned with the trend towards clubs (other than a fortunate very few) having to groundshare with soccer, where soccer invariably seems to come out on top and RL is the poor relation. They may well be looking to an opportunity to develop a true centre for RL, once the economy improves. And they are made aware of an opportunity to take over a legacy site that is costing the GAME nothing in rent and does not require a big investment in land. Perhaps a unique opportuinity.

Put those two together, and what do you get/ A club that wants to stay at Odsal, but needs a financial reserve to protect against any major unexpected costs; and an organisation that is looking to protect and in due course (probably) develop a RL heritage site for the benefit of the game as a whole, but without having to pay very much. Solution: Take over the head (peppercorn) lease from the Bulls, and charge them annual rent in exchange for a premium up-front in payment for the lease. Nothing much changes, except the Bulls can now stay at Odsal - which both Bulls and RFL want - and the RFL now get control of an asset that provides a lot more scope for the RFL for the future than it ever could for the club. The "win Win" that has been banged on about.

Does that help explain why my two statements are not contradictory at all? Its probably the best I can do!

And Saint Simon - to be honest, HAD the Bulls been "bailed out" then I'm not sure how that could have been a "sound business decision". I doubt there is any spin I could have put on such a situation that could change that. At best, yiou could have argued it was an act of extreme necessity I suppose. But if we look on this transaction as one of mutual benefit, where both Bulls AND the RFL benefit, and there are no obvious losers, then that is a bit different?

This is all on the assumption that everyone is telling it pretty well as it is. I have put my best interpretation on what I have read, seen and heard. Should it transpire that there is something significant that we have not been made aware of, and/or that I personally and the media have been told things that are not true, then of course the conclusions would be rather different. However, I have seen and heard no evidence or indication that such might be the case, and plenty to suggest that it cannot be. But I have to add the caveat in the interest of balance, just in case. It wouldn't be the frist time I have looked a prat for supporting an argument that subsequently transpired was badly flawed and we lacked the full tale (Harrisgate, anyone?) but I would be very surprised indeed if this should prove to be one such.

Why do you think new owners could simply "give up the lease". You have said at the end of your paragraph that if the Bulls "give up the lease" they owe the Council "a few million".

Regardless, I was merely pointing out that thinking that theoretic new owners of the Bulls could sell Odsal for re-development are mistaken. Theoretic new owners of the Bulls would need the freehold which is held by the Council.

What you've described there is a situation where Bradford, rather than cut their cloth to suit their circumstances, held a gun to their own heads and went to the RFL threatening to blow their brains out unless they got some cash. Hopefully the actual situation was not so blatantly manipulative.

The thing making it difficult for the council from selling the freehold previously held by the bulls. If some got control of bulls it's not difficult to get out of lease and avoid the repayment to council. Simply pit club into administrTion and reform as a new company, voiding lease and repayment agreement.
Under new lease agreement that scenario doesn't work as even if bulls ceased to exist RFL would retain lease.

New evidence has come to light:

[urlhttp://viewtopic.php?f=31&t=517561[/url

Plenty more material in this game for a man of your talents!

I think it's more a question of a wandering mind. I'm currently researching the enthralling subject of barcode verifiers and a little light entertainment was in order



The moment I read the first article on the Bulls deal I kept picturing John Cleese outfitted as a highwayman astride a large horse and dragging a huge bag marked "swag" to the idle strains of "Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore....."



I'm sure our younger posters won't have a clue what I'm talking about so checkout "Monty Python-Dennis Moore" on that there tube thingamybob and you will be enlightened.

The NRL - 'This is our house' campaign is how you do a RL advert. Brilliant, just brilliant. Almost better than watching an actual game.

I liked it best when, 80% of the way through, you get the first glimpse of Rugby League being played instead of Jon Bon Jovi in his crucifix pose.

So, have I got this?

Bradford Bulls are being hunted by a potential buyer who doesn't have the clubs interests at heart as it is public knowledge that they have a HMRC bill to pay.
Part of BBRLC's assets is the ground lease.
If BBRLC went bust, the ground lease would become meaningless and worthless.
BBRLC could then move to VP with no historical debts.
Predator that owns the Bulls can watch them go to the wall whilst making bids to buy Odsals land from the council.

Luckily...

RFL step in and buy the lease from BBRLC
This means the predator has less reason to buy the club
The Bulls future - not just at Odsal, but anywhere - is more secure as it has one less asset to get stripped

As....

The RFL is unlikely to sell the lease to anyone that damages it's own interests.




Do I understand it now?

Or, in summary, the RFL bails out Bradford Bulls. Yep, I think you've got it.

Despite what Adeybull has tried to dismiss, there is only 2 conclusions

1 bailout

2 Bulls blag cash from RFL