Nope. Think of itnlike putting a shed up in garden of a rented house. If we move we could take the shed with us. Whether that's cost effective to do is another matter.

What will be hitting the bulls most, the recession, tax bills or letting there fans in for effectively £6 a game. Yes it increased the crowd by around 40% but it reduced the gate reciepts by around 60%. Not sure on season pass prices this year but surely the RFL can;t be propping up a club so they can artificially inflate gates by loss leading.

Some really good posts putting lots of flesh on the bones.

However, how could Odsal be the subject of predatory approaches when Bradford Council own the site and the Bulls hold the long lease? A predator would have to assume that the Council would sell them the site, approve whatever development they had in mind and that the Bulls would be prepared to sell them the long lease. If Bradford Council were seriously considering this, thereby making the Bulls vulnerable to a predatory approach were they as has been mentioned earlier in financial trouble, why would they allow the Bulls to sell or 'assign' the lease to a third party? This makes the site virtually unsaleable if it wasn't before.

Even if the Bulls were on the verge of bankruptcy, thereby voiding the long lease, it would still require Bradford Council to sell the site (subject to planning from its own planning dept) in order to evict a new Bradford club. I'm not a huge fan of the council but is that really feasible?

absolute masterstroke by the club, can see why other clubs are gonna be up in arms but suppose its look after number one

I'd say unlikely. I would expect it will remain a Bulls fixed asset - leasehold property improvements. That said, it depends on the terms of the sublease between the Bulls and the RFL. Nothing to stop the asset being transferred, if there was benefit to both parties.

So in other words, the council was going to sell the ground, bulls couldn't afford it so the rfl has steped in to save the bulls having to move grounds?

Cuddles all round then.

how have you come to that conclusion

I can't tell you. Am I wrong though?

If Bulls fell over, I always assumed the long lease would revert to the council. Just an assumption, mind.

But, if I read it right, the predators were circling round what they saw was a Bulls who would need money soon to be able to continue. In such circumstances, maybe they thought Bulls would have no choice but to surrender the lease and accept some settlement from the council in exchange for the council getting the land for development. Along the lines then of what Mat said above: what the predators wanted was Bulls out of Odsal so the council got it back and could sell it - to them, naturally. What the Bulls wanted was, as in 2001, of no consequence.

I am sure the council will have had to approve of the transfer of the head lease to the RFL. FA made an earlier point about permission for such a transfer "not to be unreasonably withheld". we may never know whether the council went along with the Bulls' plan willingly or reluctantly (I'd like to hear some comment from the council on this), but I suspect the RFL was one of the few organisations for whom the council could not reasonably withhold permission to assign?

i would say very wrong

No, everybody wants to spend millions on a site with rugby club with a 100 year lease sat in the middle of it.

Yes.

If the council was to sell the freehold, that would not of itself change the Bulls long lease on it. The council would first have had to do a deal with the Bulls to buy them out of the long lease. If the Bulls declined to reach an accommodation, the council would continue to be bound by the lease.

I'll take the chance and stick with my opinion though.

Yes, all that's possible. One can only judge the council in the situation they are in themselves which is desperate for cash of course. Were the Bulls to enter administration and a new buyer emerge who's to say what their position would be. This might actually clear the decks for a new owner to show themselves now that the 'predator' issue has been removed. In other words it's now impossible, as mat says, to buy the Bulls with the intention of moving the club to VP.

Other than that it all depends on the terms of the new agreement. How much we're paying, the responsibility for upkeep, and whilst it's being kept quiet whether the RFL secretly does hold ambitions for the site.

Without the Pledge scheme, the crowds would almost certainly have fallen a lot further. the club knew this. What you should compare is what the Pledge scheme raised compared with the likely gate receipts for the next season, not the last.

the pledge scheme brought a load of cash inw hen it was most neeed - the very lean last quarter, where most of the other income has been spent or run out.

The Bulls had around 4,000 memberships before. now they have over 10,000 - that is 250% of before. I suspect at full price they may have had a lot less than 4,000.

Memberships tend to bring in a lot more ancillary income than walk-ins.

The much higher membership base makes generating sponsorship and commercial income very considerably less difficult.

There is no "loss-leading" involved, since a large part of gate income remains as contribution - the variable costs attributable to each additional attendee are not high. Do you actually understand what "loss-leading" means?

Quite the opposite; all ways round, the Pledge scheme is a brilliant win-win for a club in our particular situation.

And what prey tell did you contribute towards that new east stand? As far as im aware all the works were held up for so long as you were not paying rent, and not forth coming with the promise of 1 million towards it. The football club did all the hard work without it costing your lot a penny!

THAT one never occurred to me. And whether they rent it or own it, must be a big potential cost-saving opportunity for them?

Food for thought there. Although I could see serious resistance from the legions of troops at Red Hall having to move from the green countryside of the Golden Triangle to the delights of Odsal!

How's business, btw? Hope its going OK?

Hello Adey, yes not bad my friend, how are you

heard a little rumour Mr Caisley could be emerging from the shadows soon, he is still majority shareholder so could be some truth in it

I fully understand what loss leading is. Its the selling of something at a lower price than is economically viable to encourage either extra purchases of other materials (shirts, beer etc) or to generate future revenue (getting young people hooked.

Not saying its wrong but if the initiative doesn't work, ie you still lose money and you get a lot of new / stay away fans to come and don't generat future interest ie. you play poorly and fans are still disinterested then you have made a rod for your own back. You can't increase the passes to the viable price as even less fans would buy then would have if you'd left them at the original price.

Whats the pricing structure this year and are you expecting an increase/decrease/stay the same?

Seems like good news for the Bulls, and I'm all for safeguarding the future of clubs, within reason.

I would still like to see the RFL explain why it makes sense for them and the sport as a whole though. If this is a move that genuinely makes sense for all parties, then I can't see a problem. The only way it would become a problem is if the RFL was giving (and it wouldn't be the first time) financial help to a club to the detriment of the governing body.

I assume there will be more information on this, although I guess the RFL is not under any particular obligation to disclose the details.

I don't understand any of this. Can someone put it into simple terms please? How can the RFL buy something from the Bulls which still actually belongs to the council? Or does it not?

The council owns the freehold.

The Bulls hold - held - a very long leasehold, at peppercorn rent.

The RFL now hold a very long leasehold - presumably still at peppercorn rent.

That gives the RFL the ability to charge a sub-tenant a commercial rent, thereby earning income from soemthing that is costing them a peppercorn.

For the Bulls to move from the position of paying a peppercorn every year to paying a commercial rent, they would need something very substantial in return.

That something was what the Bulls needed most - a substantial cash injection.

This was achieved by selling (or, if FA is watching, "assigning"icon_wink.gif the head lease to the RFL in exchange for a lot of money.

Very much like how the Bulls surrendered the 1986 Odsal agreement back to the council, in exchange for £4.7m or whatever and the liability for the future costs.

PH & Co seem to have managed to get a second payment from the same asset. I applaud them. Some non Bulls fan council tax payers may not.

OK, that's more clear and I understand where you are coming from.

And your argument in that respect is pretty irrefutable. The club bet on an imminent improvment in on-field performance to maintain the momentum and avoid the situation you describe. That did not happen - and the club must have been pretty mortified. Nevertheless, they pulled it off again this year, with a modest price increase (I think it was 15% for me?) and almost the same number sold. One hell of an achievement in the circumstances.

And now we HAVE to see that translated to improved performances on the park.

So the assumption must be that the maintenance of the stadium passes to the RFL now?

if so its win/win for the bulls

happy days