Hmmmm.

The RFL only have an 'asset' in the form of Odsal if others deem it to have value. If we were to move out, they have a gigantic white elephant fraught with problems for developers, should that be their preferred course of action.

There is however an assumption that the RFL have done us wrong, when in actual fact, perhaps it is us who have treated them with a little disdain. For a start, they didn't have to purchase any lease from us. That said, discussions with them regarding more favourable terms don't necessarily need to involve bullet firing and threats; just simple dialogue. I'm certainly no fan of Valley Parade, but whatever gets the boat sailing.

The Odsal pitch is not full size but does meet minimum rfl size standard requirements. VP does not.

operational rules, A2:10
[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/RFL%20Operational%20Rules%20section%20A.pdf[/url

I would comment but without a link it's pointless. I may as well say Caisley tells electric company he will not pay the electric bills unless they agree to a cheaper rate.

You could try this with any number of agreements, Caisley tells coach company he will not pay outstanding bill unless they lower the price of coach journeys etc etc.

I don't need to post links, check my track record!

The deal was very very bad for us and heavily skewed in the RFL favour to placate other clubs (hence no public outcry from other chairmen), we were in an extremely weak position and negotiated from the same.

All the new BoD are trying to do is revisit on the basis that it's good for EVERYONE for the Bulls to be at Odsal on fair terms.

As major shareholder did Caisely agree to the original terms?

That is a reasonable short-term fix. Longer term I would think planning to activate the buy-back clause would be the way forward. Needs more cash...