hmmmmm. Tenant with a poor credit rating and an abysmal record for repaying loans, threatens to default on his current lease......

Yes, prospective Landlords will be falling over themselves in the rush to get his signature on a new contract!

PS Good win for you last night

For once I agree with you!

We can all see what CC is trying to do but ATEOTD he'll need a strong ST sale and cant see him getting that at VP!

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.

Can you actually threaten to walk out on a contract and move to another pitch whose dimensions don't meet the minimum size requirements and be taken seriously?

This is the RFL, so yes



The governing body won't risk losing a club of our stature for the sake of 4 metres; notwithstanding the fact that it was good enough for two seasons under their stewardship.

But not if you've done the dirty on them when they were trying to help you out.
If its true it seems a high risk or at least an incredibly arrogant move from Caisley.

The RFL have come under a lot of stick from fans of other clubs over their supposedly favourable treatment of Bradford. It may well be that they can objectively justify the actions that they took over the lease. But the perception remains that they have bent over backwards to help the club.

They will be acutely aware that any further action to help the club will be subject to critical scrutiny. There must be a limit to how far they can be pushed.

Caisley has backed himself and the Club into a corner, he jumped the gun again just like he did with Harris, there won't be a satisfactory outcome while he is still a shareholder!

Pretty much agree with that. I think using 'asset' in inverted commas is correct as the value of the Odsal lease would diminish to little more than nothing without a major league team playing there.

The major obstruction to the VP solution, as I see it, remains the money that would have to be repaid to the council under the Odsal settlement. Not to mention the bad will between council and club if admin was used as a means to avoid payment. If making the payment meant the death of the club it is possible the council may take the political expedient of not enforcing it of course - though that certainly won't go down well in some parts of the district.

As for VP, I've said a few times it's not my favourite stadium for a few reasons and that it's far from ideal for RL; the solid boundary walls are far too close to the lines for rugby imo, and constitute a real danger to players. That said, IIRC, there is no actual minimum size written into the laws of the game, only that 100metres is the desired length and if that's not obtainable then [ias near as possible [/i, which gives plenty of leeway. If push comes to shove I'd go with GB and say, whatever gets the boat sailing. Though my gut feeling is that financially it won't work.

Wasn't the original story that there were predatory forces at work trying to obtain Odsal and that is why the RFL bailed us out. If Caisley walks out then that gives the RFL the chance to make a financial killing without being seen to be giving us the shaft.

Considering you got a franchise when you were on the edge of the abyss I'd suggest you keep the RFL as friends. That "special relationship" saved you. You could be with Crusaders now.

It was indeed the line from both club and RFL.

Not sure what the council, as owner, would think, or what its powers would be, if the Bulls were to go and then the RFL attempted to profit from the situation, though neither am I sure how they could make anything on it, to be honest. I'd assume (but don't know) that there is some clause in the lease preventing general building or other non-sporting use, though the cost of clearing the chemicals which were reportedly dumped there over the years, might be enough in itself to be prohibitive.

I guess if we move out, the RFL will still be legally obliged to meet its rent to the council, unless some new deal, which clears up the whole sorry mess, including the settlement money, is struck between club, RFL, council and other ground. I'm assuming the 'other ground' would be VP btw, despite my misgivings, thereby keeping the club in the city and, of course, with the proviso that it would be cheaper than the current deal. To be honest it all sounds a deal too far to me.

If the Bradford Bulls are a Franchise they could relocate elsewhere. If Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd pay the rent its a seperate issue to holding the Franchise Name.

Can it really be that simple? Though, it was really the rent paid to council for the primary lease(by the RFL) that I was thinking about rather than what the Bulls pay to the RFL, though there could be terms in the lease from the RFL about minimum length of tenure (I guess?).

Funnily enough it opens a new can of worms. The Bulls no longer have a lease from the council, the RFL do, so how are the Bulls tied by a lease they don't have? Unless the Bulls' new lease with the RFL has clauses which say they must pay the settlement money to the council if they leave. I do remember Peter Hood stating (at the forum) that the Bulls' position hadn't changed in respect of their security of tenure or their obligations under the new lease, so that may well be the case.

The problem with making threats is if your bluff is called then you have to back them up. Caisley is grandstanding for the masses and will use the rent and the intransegence of the RFL to deflect blame.
There is only so much that the RFL will take and it is a very dangerous game to play. I would suggest that should Caisley back up hos threats all bets would be off and Halifax would be a new SL club in 2015, if not sooner.

Does anyone know if there's word of truth in the OP's claim?

"There's no Truth here! We are a Local Forum!"

I've not seen the information anywhere else, so it's a no, from me.

Hardly a major problem, given that the Odsal pitch is undersized too.

Did the lawyer & major shareholder raise these objections to the terms of the lease when the RFL baled the BUlls out? Never trust a man with a 'tache.

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...