Clearly we need to think outside of the box a bit more often...

I must admit I never understood why some people apparently needed to go into a box to think in the first place. I try to limit my exposure to the marketing department to avoid contracting these strange notions!

Out of the box thinking can overlook what's in the middle of the box.
The Lease held by the RFL on Odsal.

Are you implying that in 2 years time we will get the lease back having paid RFL back for it? That would be good but I think if that was what was going on OK Bulls would have made a big deal about it by now. Is this a guess or do you know more?

That thought had occurred to me too, and I nearly mentioned it, but I really struggled to see how that would be accepted by the other clubs so I dismissed it as being too outrageous to warrant consideration...

Its probably just a big coincidence that the sums being talked about for the Sky monies reduction, the recorded creditors (less Peter Hood's company) and the amount the RFL paid for the lease are all very similar in size, at between £1,25m and 1.3m!

Are you saying that the RFL will pay off the recorded creditors?. If they don't then only the lease remains in your equation

It's all guess work until the accounts are seen.

I rekon the RFL will just pay the creditors off with our Sky money. Basically just cuts out the middle man (us).

Leaving aside the possibility that maybe the irony in my comment went by a bit fast, no I am not. There are a whole raft of possible explanations and possible applications of the money. Paying creditors is one; some deal with the lease is another; one I did not mention, but a guy on another forum has, is that all the other clubs get a cut, and that was their price for alowing Bulls to be re-admitted. Another is that it goes to swell the RFL coffers, and yet another is that it goes to swell Big Nige's lunchbox. Another possibility is that we get some back later if we pass probation. That we are realistically considering all of those (and more) as possibilities, and that we can't really bring ourselves to rule any out no matter how unlikley or unreal they might otherwise have seemed (OK, maybe the lunchbox...) shows just how crazy this whole situation has become?

Right, can,t stand this unknown any longer, I,m cutting my payments to Sky by 50%.

When Wakefield were promoted to SL we received no Sky money for the first 2 years and spent subsequent seasons trying to catch up with everyone else!

Already reported that creditors have nowt to do with ok bulls. They are not getting paid. It was khan who suggested he would operate off lower sky monies IF they kept you in SL. So you have effectively bought your place in SL.

However how can they make a two year sky monies decision when you are on a one year probation. If you dropped to the championship in 2014 you would only get rfl monies of 70k PER YEAR....and people wonder why the gap is so big lol

Pure speculation of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is some kind of scheme to buy back the Odsal lease. The reason I say this is because OK has already spoken about investing significant amounts into Odsal. Why would he do that without owning either the lease or the buildings ? It'd be like renting a flat from a landlord and paying to put a new kitchen and bathroom in yourself. Nobody in their right mind would invest the kind of money talked about (~£6m IIRC) into a facility without owning it first.

Was it? That is news to him and Mr Sutcliffe.

Funnily enough, Blake Solly flagged up that a prospective new owner may [uhave to[/u make do with less money some weeks ago. He never said a prospective new owner had volunteered to.

He owns the Coral stand. He is investing in that.

He rents the terraces. I believe he has a longish lease from the RFL. He is planning - when funds permit - to put a lid on the popular terrace. That will be leasehold improvements, same as any normal leasehold improvements. If it generates more income and recovers the investment cost, it matters not one jot whether he owns or leases the site.

He has plans to put new buildings on some of the site. Ditto.

If you had a reasonably long tenant's repairing lease for your flat, you would have no qualms about putting in a new kitchen and bathroom. Indeed, my mother did precisely that when she had a housing association flat (which she never bought). I think she would take great exception to you telling her she was not in her right mind, you know.

And that was unfair, and I said so at the time.

But in what way is that relevant to our situation?

It had been hinted at before but was probably most clearly stated this week:-
"League Express understands that the offer of the new owners to take only half of the central distribution for the next 2 seasons was a key factor that persuaded the RFL directors to approve their continuation as a Super League club" (Direct lift from page 3 of this week's edition)

Now that could have been an offer not volunteered but imposed during the negotiations as the only way we could remain in Super League. But it seems to me that the new owners did know before last Friday and possibly knew when they made the statement that we would spend up to the full salary cap.

Perhaps a question for the forum?

However I take the view expressed earlier by Ferocious Aardvaark-- all very interesting but we are where we are so let's think of the future and not dwell on the past.

Whilst I agree mostly with your last paragraph, I would like to know where the funds we are not getting are going. Defintely a question for the forum, but they might not know, the funds are going from sky to the rfl, but then not to us, are they staying with the rfl or being distributed? Its a question for the RFL, I might even write and ask 'em.

They still wouldn't own the ground if they bought back the primary lease though, it would still belong to the freeholder, ie Bradford Met. I assume OK Bulls have the same lease (from the RFL) as the old management did, and at the last Forum PH said (IIRC) it was the same terms as they'd had from the council (basically 150 years, when taken out originally and the club responsible for upkeep). If what he said was true, the principle benefit to be gained by buying back the primary lease is not having to pay rent to the RFL, as they would already have security of tenure.

There is a difference in what is being paid though. The RFL are making a profit on the lease of the ground. They have the peppercorn rent we used to pay to the council versus "market rate" that they are charging us.

If we went back to leasing direct from the council that would in long term save us money - depends what the market rate is really as to how important it would be to get back to those terms.

That's true enough, though I've no idea if the RFL's deal with the council is on the same terms as we had from the settlement. I suspect they would have had the opportunity to amend things if they wished.

I agree that the destination of the withheld funds should be revealed-- it's not only Bulls fans that should be interested. If it is to be shared between the other 13 clubs that would be less than 50K each. I could think of a number of other uses that would be of more benefit to the game--e.g. youth development, player welfare, more support for Championship clubs. Using the funds for a wider purpose would at least rebut the charge that other clubs have agreed only from self interest
Perhaps a journalist will ask the League and save you the trouble. There again perhaps not.....

It does make you wonder what Sky's view of this is. Fair enough, they are paying to show SL on TV and they shouldn't really influence how the game is run but they probably won't be pleased that the RFL are actively using the cash to promote an uneven competition.

Suppose, on the basis that the RFL clearly thinks half the money is sufficient to run a team in SL, that, in the absence of any other bidder, they cut the amount paid by half? Take it or leave it?

I think if Bulls are only getting half the Sky money, they would be entitled to tell Sky they will only sanction half the games Sky were going to televise of us - the away games...? Since the club is being denied the benefit of Sky money but is still hurt by lower attendances at televised home games.

Assuming that Sky will even want to televise games involving such a hamstrung club...?

Incidentally, any of the hardy few who still bother to read the "comments" on the appallingly-badly (un) moderated T&A site will know that there is a troll on there, seemingly with mental health issues, that keeps pretending to be other posters. Its latest activity is to copy posts of mine off here verbatim under its own login. If anyone knows it, can they try and persuade it to go and seek the help it so obviously needs?