I love the 1950's attitude implying that the ABC are 'foreign'.

I think it does - with lots of empty units and available land without the contamination problem around the 606 why would a developer spend £'ms for the privilege of developing Odsal where the site would have to be decontaminated first.

We clearly aren't going to get an investor just willing to throw cash at the club - so the consortiums would be looking for ways to turn a profit from other activties with the rugby as an add on, and in the current climate it wont be easy

Indeed, just as this thread also had nothing to do with that, until the moment you decided to throw that weird comment in! Who said Odsal "could not be developed"?? What you actually said was that Odsal's:


My response was nothing at all to do with whether it "could be developed". [iAnything[/i "could" be developed. The North face of the fscking Eiger "could" be developed, but that doesn't make it prime development land for industrial storage, now does it?

Batley have already done Mount Pleasant

Crikey , some posters on here are getting super defensive



Its fair to say most fair minded RL fans want the Bulls to survive , but some people need to be a bit more contrite otherwise Charity fatique may start kicking in and sympathy could ebb away fast .

So if "iconic" Odsal can't realistically be developed...who are these "predators" that the RFL bought out the lease to protect you from???

Ironically, the RFL taking the lease is the thing stopping the consortia getting hold of the Bulls - if they wanted the Bulls, buying out a lease, which is on already on favourable terms, would not even factor into the equation.

They want access to the land - rugby is secondary.