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?

Do you have a wannabe stalker?

No reason to think Sky will even consider it imo, to be fair to them they pay for games and they pick and choose as they wish. No doubt we'll get a couple in the first half of the season and then it will depend on where we are in the league and, even more importantly, who the opposition is.

It would be a bit of a bummer if we lost out due to playing Wigan at home just as they are, say, needing one more win to secure the hub cap, but it would be just our luck.

I very much doubt it. Sky's contract is with the collective entity known as SLE. They will have agreed to pay £Xm to televise X number of games of their choice. How SLE then distributes that income among its shareholders is outwith that contract and is a matter for SLE itself.

BTW, does anybody yet know if this reduction in monies was forced or voluntary as I have seen contradictory statements on the matter. Some people seem to think it was imposed as a form of punishment, yet others (including League Express) seem to think it was a voluntary measure by the new owners as an act of good faith.

Ours will be a story Sky will want to cover next season so I expect they will insist on televising home games especially at the beginning of the season. Backs against the wall, rising like a phoenix, less resources than all other teams-- lots of good storylines for them
I think despite all the bad news and negative comments about Rugby League the game has a golden opportunity next year. Sky will be smarting at losing the Rah Rah rights and they've shown in the past they are sore losers. I expect their publicity ,coverage and promotion of League will expand. When Sky have lost rights before they have given that sport or league minimal exposure on their sports programmes. I would not be surprised if they outbid Premier for the rights to NRL and Championship next year.

PS To Derwent-- I've posted the Express view on one of the threads but there is some confusion and some take the view it was imposed. For example Adey posted "it's news to Sutcliffe and Khan".
If I can get to the forum next Tuesday (some doubt as I have to work in London that day) I intend to ask.

I'm not sure whether this will be the case. I think it depends on what calibre games against the old rivals are in prospect. I don't remember them queing up for Wakey or Widnes games.

I WAS being somewhat tongue in cheek there! Since its the RFL anyway deciding who gets what Sky money and not Sky. But not entirely tongue in cheek, since it would be an interesting argument to try out on the RFL. Or, maybe, for those of us who subscribe to Sky Sports only for the RL, to try out on Sky...

I think you'll find that Wakefield vs Bulls [iwas[/i on Sky earlier in the season

That's correct it was.
Sky always go 'round the clubs' in the first half of the season, pretty much giving everyone a go, then usually look for the more interesting/better (from their pov) fixtures later on, so it wasn't a great shock, to be honest.

Keep it for another "rainy day" say, when the next SL club goes belly-up sometime next year?

Why should our share of the money go to the next club that falls over?

We never received any money - beyond what we would have received anyway - when WE fell over?

So until someone officially says why no one knows why this money has been paid or who to????

If it's a payment to the RFL for either the lease or say another loan, then I don't see the problem.

Don't think it's been (or being) paid to anyone so far as we know. It is [inext[/i year's money we're talking about, so I guess there's time to maybe get a re-think. Gerry Sutcliffe said it was still being discussed so it [isounds [/istill open.

Strange thing to me is that the RFL haven't made any statement about it, and that may be because they possibly regard it as confidential, between them and the club, I dunno. From this end it was always likely to be regarded as trying to keep it quiet though...