Anyway, back to the thread.
Now we've all had chance to "compare notes", Bailout or Investment ?

Seems to depend on whether you are a bitter Wakey fan, unable to get their head round the fact that their chairman sold THEIR stadium to developers, so it was lost to the club and the game, whereas ours sold OURS to the RFL.

Neither.

A piece of real estate has been sold. RFL happen to have bought it. No one would give a flying one if a venture capital firm, the local council or a rich individual had bought it.

And if they have the money, who cares who the buyer is, so long as everyone's all right?

Adey, whilst you have admirably endeavoured to explain the situation regarding the purchase of the lease, you are now reverting to comparisons that are irrelevant.

I don’t care the RFL has bought Bradford’s lease, I don’t care how much they’ve paid for it. Nor do I care why they’ve done it.

However, with regards to future licence’s, would you not agree that Bradford are now gold plated with the RFL as their masters?

No.

And the RFL are not our masters; just our landlord.

As you will probably hear from the terraces this year:

"Richard Lewis, he's OK...
he's OK, he's OK;
Richard Lewis, he's OK...
he's our landlord."

I would say that it would be highly embarrassing for the RFL if Odsal was to fail the stadium criteria; but it is highly unlikely that those criteria would have been set so that Bulls would not get a licence just because of the stadium anyway! Don' forget that Bulls were NOT one of the clubs warned about their stadium in the previous round, and they were not put on any particular warning this time. The stadium is stated as being in need of some improvement, but we start from already having over 6,000 seats and a large covered stand as well as extensive modern corporate facilities and large on-site car parks and other boxes ticked. Nothing said we were at serious risk on the stadium for next time round. Maybe the time AFTER that, I'll grant you. But a club with a B-grade licence (as we have) is should be OK next time round, all other things being equal anyway.

People seem to forget that there are loads of other criteria that are applied. If Bulls get the crowds, develop the players and perform OK on the park, (and don't go bust...) there is NO WAY they'd lose their licence, any more than any of the other SL clubs. If the Bulls fail at the first two and the last (they have conspicuously failed at the third in recent years) then they become very very vulnerable - and rightly so.

In such a situation, the worst case scenario is that the RFL surrender the long lease back to the council and maybe take a hit on the amount of the original payment that they have not recovered through rentals. But remember, the RFL have a charge on the Bulls' assets, which includes e.g. the (removable) Coral Stand, so you would expect that in any insolvency they could recover a fair bit even of that.

The way I see it, the RFL are taking an element of commercial risk that the Bulls may eventually not be in a position to pay the rent, in exchange for picking up a huge site with (despite what the naysayers would believe) very considerable future potential for the RFL.

This does create the potential for a conflict of interests on the RFLs part when licence applications are considered. There's no denying that.

Potential, for sure. The actual - I think more could be done by the RFL to clarify for people why this will not actually be the case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. There are many criteria for licensing applications and the Bulls were, what, a B last time? I doubt they'd be in danger of not getting a licence any time soon.

It's the RFLs problem, not the Bulls, and it's the RFLs potential conflict, not the Bulls.

Besides, the grounds for licencing decisions are pretty clear so anyone with half a brain can determine and interpret the decisions and reach their own conclusions.

But I am sure the conspiracy theorists will use the potential conflict to cite favouritism.

Correct, they wouldn't, but since what actually happened was that the governing body a) bought it and b) issued a spin-tastic press statement in an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, people do give a flying one, and rightly so.

There is an undoubted and irrefutable conflict of interest going forward in terms of licence decisions; to deny such is stupid. There is also yet more damage done to the trust and confidence of RL fans in the RFL; to deny that is stupid. Finally, I would imagine there are a number of SL Chairmen who are incensed by this decision, and that will damage the RFL's ability to administer the game going forward.

It's a mess, a self-inflicted and easily avoidable one, but a mess nonetheless.

The conflict of interest is wider than simply in relation to whether the ground will be treated less harshly at license application time than other stadiums.

The RFL as landlord receive rent from Bradford and have an interest in continuing to receive that income, so it is not in the RFL's interest for Bradford's income to go down (as a result of a failure to win a license, for example). Will the RFL step in to bail them out should Bradford get in financial difficulties?

The RFL also have an interest in enhancing the value of their asset, which means that Bradford may benefit directly from investment by the RFL whereas the rest of the league will at best benefit indirectly through the increased asset value. We may well see for example the RFL doing a deal with Bradford to upgrade Odsal in return for a higher rental or a share of revenue.

Not a good situation for the game as a whole, good though it may be for Bradford in isolation.

Yes we can - Crusaders, Wakey, Cas, Widnes....

Whats up with Widnes' ground ? and does Odsal have the required number of covered seats ? Same foe HKR ?
Cas & Wakey know ther are things to be done, but maybe others are unwilling to acknowledge the fact !

You say the mismanagement is in the past, but that has yet to be proved either way, and I cant think of any of the problems associated with Wakefield which you could say were down to the Franchise system. Wakefields problems existed in spite of the franchise system not because of it.
And yes, season ticket sales may be up at Wakefield but they are still much lower than Bradford, and yes average sales may be up but they are still much lower than Bradfords. Yes they are making impovements to Belle Vue but these improvements have been a long long long time coming and Belle Vue even then, wont be as good as odsal.
We only come back to the franchise system because you have brought it back to the franchise system, thats the kind of circular thinking I was talking about. Wakefield as club played in Belle Vue, had masses of overseas players, poor crowds and were by any realistic measure a struggling SL club before franchising had been put in place. And if the correlation between the entrance to SL of clubs like Paris, Gateshead, Crusaders, and London proves they are responsible for the struggles of the heartland clubs doesnt it also prove they are responsible for the massive improvement which has put about 10k on Leeds attendance? the attendance increases at Warrington? St Helens? Hull FC? Wigan? Bradfords attendances are historically pretty good is that down to the expansion clubs aswell? Huddersfield? Nor is there the desire in cumbria, hence their struggles.
If you want to look for a conspiracy, you will find one wherever you look. If Wakefield drop out next time and you want to find a reason which doesnt blame that club, use this. But it will do no good. The fact is, Wakefield are in danger come licence time because they havent made themselves indispensable, If they do everything they have promised, if they get a new stadium, get 10k attendances, stop giving playing positions to so many overseas journeymen, give more chances to youngsters you have developed and you wont be in danger.

Some people have some very short memories of just what a state the game was in a few years ago.

And after the millions pumped in by Sky what state is it in now? We've had Crusaders and Wakey go bust whilst holding licenses. There is a question mark over Bradford's financial health. There's two clubs at least that are massively discounting their product with cheap ST offers (which is going to be bloody difficult to reverse). How many other clubs are trying to drink from a dry well? Before you jump on my back with the old straw man bollax - I realize I'm just fishing with my questions but if I was a betting man I wouldn't be afraid to slap down a few notes on the presumption that the game (SL clubs) is far from being in rude health.

compared to where the game was 10/15 years ago? Its in massively better health

Phew!

Everything's alright.

Thank goodness.

What does this have to do with Wakefield? Are the RFL buying Belle Vue?

Nothing's up with Widnes' ground (well, apart from the fact that it's in Widnes...

)

I wasn't referring to their ground but the controversial way they have been denied SL spots in the past - including, ludicrously, because of financial mismanagement by a board that had been replaced by the time the RFL took action. And even more hilariously in view of recent events, the new board was led by a certain Stobart Group director...

But the RFL insanely decided to punish the new board (and of course the fans), perhaps in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from its own failure as a regulator to control clubs' finances properly.

And then there was Widnes' exclusion at the outset of SL....

The experience of the Giants in 2009 2010 suggests otherwise. Over 50% of the people buying their first ever-cheap - ST in 2009 bought a 'full price' ticket in 2010 and 2011. This is probably why the Giants have repeated the approach in 2012

Is this really true? I wasn't aware that the pricing structure had reverted back to full price in 2010 and 2012. I still think it's a risky ploy.

Is this really true? I wasn't aware that the pricing structure had reverted back to full price in 2010 and 2011. I still think it's a risky ploy.

Well the basic ground entry tickets for Bradford went up £10 this year to £85. Though there's a 10% drop on the number sold last year, this can be pointed at as being the fault of Bradford's poor season. However, the Bulls still sold over 10k and as they don't have the rich backer than clubs like Huddersfield etc have to pick up the financial slack of these sort of deals, the costs have clearly been worked out so that the club is not out of pocket from offering these prices

Aye, Confirmed tonight (in response to my specific question) just over 10.1k season tickets so far. About 10% down on the same time and comparable memberships last year. I paid £117 c/w £99 last year. Prima facie, season ticket income this year should be a bit higher than last year. Not what the naysayers will want to hear, I guess.

Good news, all the best to the club.