I would be embarrassed

its starting to sink in now isn't it



what gets me is that they was negotiating for quite some time but still hadn't the balls to announce it until it was signed

Honestly, I wouldn't want it, if for no other reason than to avoid the scorn and derision that this bail-out has heaped upon your club; I'd prefer WTW to stand or fall on its own efforts, rather than become the RFL's charity case.

The governing body of the game now has a massive stake in one of the clubs that it will be required to make objective judgements about come licence time; can you honestly say that's a fair or credible position to be in?

You don't get it, do you?

1 - there is more noise about this coming from your fans than pretty well everyone else put together.

2 - virtually everyone - even most of you lot - sees this as a win for the Bulls. Far from pouring "scorn and derision" on us, the general reactions seem to coalesce between "good for them" and "unfair advantage".

3 - any "scorn and derision" seems largely reserved for the RFL, who are identified by most critical observers as being the villain of the piece.

4 - By contrast, many fans (I'm not one of them, although reactions of folk like you are not helping) are more than happy to pour scorn and derision on you guys. Not least for two insolvencies whilst in SL, both meaning an "unfair" jettisoning of debts. Yet the RFL went along both times - doubtless that too was a scandal and a disgrace? Getting rid of debts that way (and screwing your suppliers - remember last time when - IIRC - you took the two-man catering supplier for £11k, for example - and the taxpayer) gave you an advantage over other clubs that many would claim was manifestly unfair. I believe doing that it is unfair - and I've worked in the insolvency industry myself - but I'm not getting worked up about it. Because shìt happens, and you can always find some other guy whose grass you reckon is greener. Especially when you either lack or are not prepared to consider all the facts.

5 - I say again - your previous management was clearly poor. Selling stadiums to developers with no cast-iron alternative? And anyway, it must have been, because you all say it was. Bulls' management clearly is not (despite what some of our own lot might like to think). It can't be, to have cut a win-win deal like this.

Rather than blame the RFL for its actions, I suggest you need to look much closer to home for reasons for why things are as they are. And just get on and prove things on the park again.

TBH Adey, i think you are confusing or clouding the situation, by comparing one with the other.

If we take the Bulls deal first, there are no clear salient point, that dictate the need for this deal other than the Bulls are skint and they need some help, they are no financially better off, to the contrary they now must be financially worse off long term.
There is also no clear or discernable reason as to why the RFL would be any better off buying a lease for something they don't actually need.
Why both the Bulls and the RFL couldn't just come out and say, the Bulls are in trouble and we (the RFL) are here to help", oh hang on! and this is where the two deals could now be compared, "but we didn't help Wakefield!!!"
I think its fair to say, from that point of view its hardly a surprise that Wakefielf fans are more peeved than others and IMO rightly so.
Wakefields problems were largely of their own making, nobody moaned louder or longer than me on that note, so i kind of agree with some of what your saying, but it doesn't take away the point that the RFL are helping one club and not another.
The only reason you have offered is that we didn't own your ground, but neither do the Bulls, we are both tennented clubs, both with a large financial problem and help was only offered to one, and that is wrong.
I return to a point i made earlier, and it comes down to a perceived lack of honesty and fairplay many RL fans have with the RFL, so many of their dealings,,Contracts for star players at certain clubs, the lack of fair penalisation of big clubs and big name players that transgress the games laws, London, Paris, Catalan, Crusaders, and now the Bulls, they all leave a sour taste in the mouth and create more questions than answers.
No criticism of the Bulls at all, and certainly not of the fans, although some do protest too loudly, but so would I.
All the criticism is leveled rightly in my view at Red Hall, would you employ any of these guys i doubt it, and if the shareholders of the game were asked neither would many of them im sure.

But realistically who would have wanted to buy a stadium with 145 years of a lease to run which meant they could do nothing with it.

As I've said previously, I have no issue with what Bradford have done, fair play to them they have done a good deal. It's the ridiculous attempt by the RFL to dress it up as something other than a financial bailout that I have an issue with.

No matter what any Bradford fan says I cannot believe that this is anything more than them rescuing a member club from administration and assisting them financially like they did with Crusaders but yet not doing the same for other clubs.

Nobody in their right mind can possibly believe that the RFL have the finances available to be able to develop Odsal into any kind of National RL Stadium, so really all they have done is made themselves the landlords of a member club and as such put themselves in a position where it is almost impossible for them to deny Bradford a licence at any point in the future.

If the RFL and Bradford both came out and said "We needed to do this as without it Bradford would be in financial trouble" I'd respect them a lot more for it.
I wouldn't want any club to go into administration, and am upset that we had to go down that route. I don't think it looks good for the sport as a whole to see any member club in trouble. I'd be happy for the governing body to help out any club that found themself in difficulty, just don't tell me a pack of lies to try and disguise what you're doing.

KC, you jus beat me to it with a fairly similar post!!

What I would say is that Wakefield's problems were of their own making, are Bradford's not the same?? They didn't have to almost bankrupt themselves with the Iestyn Harris thing, just don't sign him - it's not like he was worth anything like what it ended up costing them is it??

Thats the point i was making, we were both in identical boats, but have been treat far differently, i would argue that we benefited far more (from receiving no help) as it saw the back of Richardson and maybe that would have been beneficial to the Bulls too, time will tell.
In hindsight i have little compassion for the mess we found ourselves in, although i was mainly concerned with our existence at the time, in hindsight I'm sure Adey will realise this is nothing short of RFL window dressing.

It stinks.

I cant believe one of the selection criteria for superleague is around stadiums and Bulls have had theirs bought by the people doing the judging.

Only in this game would this happen. Any other sport where there is more money a decision like this would result in legal action.

The Harris signing was not the root cause of Bradford's problems - although it still did a hell of a lot of damage, and amost certainly (IMO) led to the ousting of Caisley. The root causes are the club had, and has, no wealthy owner; could not do the "normal" thing and develop the stadium with a retail development because that was stymied in a failed bid by (IMO) the council and others to save Bradford City and sacrifice the Bulls; and is (or was) stuck with a stadium that costs far more to maintain than smaller or newer stadia. Net result was big losses which, unlike in the case of many other clubs, were not underwritten by the owner or could not be relieved by going bust and immediately rising like a phoenix.

Even if the RFL WAS to have stepped in to stop Bradford falling over, there are plenty of SL precedents ranging from Hull to Huddersfield. Also, if Bulls WERE to fall over it is unlikely a phoenix could ever rise, because the Council would take back Odsal and playing at VP is not a viable option. But that is all a load of hypothetical stuff.

You actually received very considerable help, since you were able to dump your debts and obligations (If only Bulls could have dumped the Harris debt, and the reversionary liability to the council if they leave odsal before 2019, and the tax due re historic imnage rights etc, eh? And immediately carry on as before?). You - the new company - were allowed by the RFL to carry on as before having shed your debts (a sizeable chunk being to the taxpayer, so you can argue you have received a big taxpayer subsidy). Bulls have not defaulted on their obligations to anyone, including the taxpayer. At least the odsal transaction is stated as being at commercial values - a sale and leaseback. That should mean no loss anywhere to anyone.

You all seem anyway to be missing the point regarding the potential for future development at Odsal. No-one is seriously questioning that nothing will happen until the economic climate improves. When it does, the RFL has evey chance of having the resources to see some measure of development. The same way as most such projects progress - put in some capital, and borrow the large part on long-term loan, repaid out of future income. Exactly as the OSV was to proceed and exactly as is the usual model for a stadium etc development unless you can find a friendly supermarket chain to fund most of it. The RFL's "capital" can be exactly the same as the Bulls' was to be in the OSV - the site. This effectively makes the land component free - a very big part of the cost of many developments. And the RFL, being a governing body, has access to all sorts of public sector funding streams that an individual club could never have (I have been tiold this categorically). Plus, of course, you could move Red Hall into offices and facilities on the site, giving the RFL a far more suitable new HQ and development centre on its own site witrh its own stadium.

I really think some people are so convinced this must be a stitch up that they genuinely cannot see the potential big benefits going forward for the RFL. Picking up the huge site effectively for nothing (its a purchase and leaseback, remember, so all that should be is a big exercise in timing of cash flows) should be seen as a feather in the RFL's cap, taking advantage of Bradford's comparative weakness.

Oh, and Walrus: how about you get yourself a bit more clued-up about the franchising process? Firstly, the SL clubs agree the process and sign up to it - it is not imposed by the RFL - and secondly we are assured by all parties that the assessment is against measurable criteria and there is external review of the process as well as a specific team who carry out the process. So the people buying the stadium are not excactly those doing the judging at all.

And anyway, the stadium is only one of the top-level criteria. You can have the best stadium on the planet, but (unless you are Huddersfield) if you are crap enough under the other headings then you are out.

The root cause of Bradford's problems is the same as everyone elses - spending more money than you have to try and buy success. Nobody forced Bradford to spend as much on the Salary cap as they have done, nobody forced Bradford to sign Iestyn. It is inept management, just like Wakefield's problems were.

We have been very fortunate to be able to write off a lot of debt and rise again, nobody will deny that.
Nobody will deny also that there is precedent for the RFL assisting clubs in various ways, although most would accept that it has not been done fairly or even-handedly.

The whole reason this debate is still raging is the fact that both Bradford and the RFL will not admit that the reasoning behind their purchase of the lease at Odsal is not the saving of a "historic" and "iconic" ground, it is about rescuing a member club who are in difficulty.

Adey, don't know if you are blind, stupid or a bit of both but wake up for gods sake man you are making a complete fool of yourself.

It gets better - not only do the RFL Bulls get a bail-out, they also get their stadium redeveloped at no cost, all whilst WTW and Cas tie themselves in financial knots trying to finance new grounds.

It's a joke Adey - a bad decision, badly executed.

correct the stadia is assessed externally but the rulings are set by the RFL so they could in fact of shot them selves in the foot as it may be judged that there is a conflict and may get kicked out anyway

you lot would be up in arms then wouldn't you

I'm tired of this now. It's done. I believe it will prove to be a mistake. Shall we all move on now? The RFL made their decision. I think we are all clear where we stand on this. We have a sport to watch, whatever the governing body do. I think this is wrong but the Bulls pulled it off. In the current system (that I don't agree with) we are probably fortunate to be in SL. Halifax are probably unfortunate not to be. Widnes should not have been overlooked for Celtic. Catalans should not have been relegation exempt. Wakey, Fev et al should not have been relegated in 95...and many other things the RFL got wrong in the past 17 yrs. Let's just play RL. Page 27 on this is now getting silly

But franchising; decisions made in board rooms with no real way of making the objective clarity of points in a league table...is B))**&ks. Always was, always will be in my eyes. I hate it. It degrades our sport. I will never agree with it. We have been lucky not to be consigned...YET...to the scrapheap where many clubs now fester, but if Newmarket fails, we will be. And even if it succeeds we may yet be....when faceless individuals decide the league make up, how can you ever relax? The sport and every 3 yr cycle becomes degraded to a beauty contest where everybody slags off everbody else, or at least those in the firing line of Grade B and C do. All rubbish, rubbish, rubbish!!!

I agree

As our owner said last night its great for Bulls but he will be asking why Wakefield did not get helped out and were allowed to go bust.

Bradford join Catalan & London in the 'special treatment club'.

But he also acknowledged that he probably wouldn't have been sat up there if the RFL had bought the lease from Trinity and helped the club out (which they did by paying the players during the administration). Its a strange one as the administration was a terrible thing to go through, but it has given the club a new lease of life. A lot of people lost out, but Glover went out of his way to repay some of those creditors even though he had no obligation to.

The figures over sponsorship was very encouraging, shirt sponsorship worth in the region of £250k, and with the reputation the Trinity of old had, that probably wouldn't have been possible.

That is very impressive

yer and forget about it

27 pages just shows how frustrated the fans are and are getting fed up with the RFL Bulls

I'm not fed up with the RFL Bulls - I'm just fed up with the RFL.

think your missing my point not aiming at Bradford Bulls I'm aiming at the RFL and from now on will be known as the RFL Bulls

Peter Hood stated categorically tonight

6 - The RFL had made it clear to Bradford that they did not want to see Odsal lost to the game.

7 - (As I told people) the deal was signed in December. In fact, the heads of agreement were signed in November. The timing of the announcement was agreed to be as determined by the RFL. The Gleeson (latest) scandal meant the RFL did not announce it earlier.

8 - That excuse of a report appearing in the Sun was total nonsense. No idea where it came from other than maybe lazy reading of internet forums... point 7 anyway proves how factually nonsense it was.

9 - The Bulls sub-lease runs for "decades".

10 - The Bulls are responsible for maintaining and running the stadium.

11 - (As I told people) it is a standard property sale and leaseback.

12 - Had the OSV gone ahead, then the Bulls would have transferred ownership of the site to the stadium company, off whom they would have rented the stadium. Nothing any different - indeed, the current arrangement is much more in line with the plans than the situation before the RFL purchase.

13 - The wording of the press release, and the use of the word "predatory", was entirely down to the RFL. The Bulls had no input.

14 - When the current recessionary period is over, he expects ALL the "stakeholders" (Bulls, RFL AND the Council) to sit down and agree a development plan going forward, almost certainly using external private sector money.

15 - (As I said) The RFL has access to funding streams and sources that no RL club could have. He specifically pointed out that Richard Lewis is the current chairman of Sport England...


Brought to you in the interests of objectivity.

ps. 9 clubs turned up at the RFL meeting that approved the Stobart sponsorship deal for the RFL. A further one attended by telephone. The French and three other (unnamed) clubs did not. Those clubs voted in favour by majority. Bulls voted in favour. So did Pies, Wire and Stains. To buy that amount of national advertising - and it was the national advertising that made it a "no-brainer" (his words) would cost £2m p.a. And it gives club sponsors national advertising.

Is that meant to make anyone feel better?

For me, even accepting that large parts of it are undoubtedly spin, it raises more questions than it answers; to be quite honest though, they're questions that I can't be d to ask - it's done, you're saved, bully for you.

Personally speaking, I've moved on.

here you go mate. i will tell you something.its common knowledge to most of the players in super league including the bulls that if the rfl hadn't have stepped in you would have been in administration within 2 week. thats how close it got mate. dress it up however you want. ask your own players if you are on speaking terms with any of them and i am sure that they will tell you. i am not saying it is a good or bad thing i am just saying that was the position