I find it difficult to believe that they would be so keen to buy back the lease just to get their hands on the Coral Stand.

Possibly, but if I'd won the euro lottery last week and looked to buy the club, one of the first discussions I'd have is how much would the rfl want to buy back the lease. If you're going to own the Bulls, owning the lease is also preferable if you can afford it, whatever you're plans are.

at approx £1.25m for the lease it isn't just for the coral stand, there must be another reason behind paying more for the lease than paying for the Bulls

I think there is two ways of looking at this...

Scenario 1. The investors are our saviours, our long awaited sugar (and spice) daddies. They are coming in with shed loads of c ash and want what is best for the club ie to have the asset that is the long lease on Odsal, perhaps they are even looking at modernising the stadium. Everyone’s a winner.

Scenario 2. Taking off the rose tinted spectacles, they aren’t particularly fussed about the rugby and are looking to make a quick buck. They wish to buy the long lease from the rfl, move the bulls to VP, then look to the council to change the user clause/ buy the long lease with a view to developing odsal into something completely different e.g. distribution centre etc. Then they will look to ditch the Bulls after say 18 months. What they are currently working out is the profit on Odsal less 18 months of the Bulls losses. ABC and the Council are in profit, Bulls are back in the same situation 18 months down the line. (with a squad of journey men playing at VP in front of 6,000)

I guess only time will tell....

Correct, which is what I was saying, if you're buying in and can afford it then you buy it lock stock and barrel club and lease. So you have options going forward. Why would you leave the lease with the rfl if you can afford to buy it back?

The meeting I had down at Valley Parade last month - takes on far greater significance, after reading you're scenario II.

Scenario 2 has been on my mind since the curry bid. Don't they have enough funds to take the club past the 18 months? Or is that how long they think it will take for the Council to give them change of use?

I missed out on scenarios 3 - 10. Can you list them out again please RAB90?

The third option is that they think it will take 18 months to restructure the club so that it becomes, if not profitable, at least break even.

That would include getting overpaid and under performing players off the wage bill, as well as looking to maximise income through alternative uses for the stadium and Coral Stand.

It's pretty obvious to me that this consortium don't even remotely fit into the category of 'sugar daddy'. Nothing that has been said suggests they want to simply throw money at the Bulls! They are businessmen first and foremost - yes, they 'want to put something back into the community' but first and foremost the figures have to stack up, and they have to get the Bulls to a situation where we aren't just haemorrhaging cash

I can see that they might have a preference for buying the club lock stock and barrel, including the lease.

I could also see them trying to re-negotiate the terms of the lease with the RFL, although I'd be astonished if the RFL agreed to that.

But the way this is being portrayed, not being able to buy back the lease is a deal breaker. And, if that's true, I just cannot see why it would be if only the Coral Stand is at stake.

"Don't hold your breath" was a kabaddi related, jokey response, it is a game played quite a lot in the sub-continent and the players have to hold their breath..anyway it doesn't really matter.

Or maybe they are just good businessmen who want to get as much for their money as possible, an attitude which would appear to have been sadly lacking at this club in the past. Time will tell...

I'm not totally surprised that some commercial involvement is being suggested, and to be honest (the devil is always in the detail, isn't it) most, if not all, of the previous plans for improving the ground at Odsal have included other uses. It's a huge space, with plenty of room for the once mooted Tesco superdome or other commercial activity without getting anywhere near the ground itself so I guess we need to wait and see just what is being suggested. At the end of the day I'll go with anything which leaves a club to watch.

How much of the site does the council still own?
On the previous plans the housing and new road access was earmarked for the old adjacent hospital site.
Millions would need to be spent on ground prep & clearup.
The Coral stand by itself would generate regular profit.
The rugby side at best could manage break even in a year or two.

I think assurances would need to be made to make the (attractive) move of splitting the two operations less appealing.

Heard whispers from a very reliable source last week that Nobby was ringing all and sundry across rugby league to try and get a team together for next season.

After his multi-media protestations of not being involved in any conspiracy / consortium etc I chose not to give these rumours any credence.

However given what has come to the fore today re his consultancy role to Guilfoyle I am inclined to change my mind.

On a similar note has anyone read Shane Warne's comments in RLW re Nobby? Scathing.

Am I missing something? why would a cricketer be commenting in RLW?.

What's the jist of them?

Oops meant Shaun Wane - malapropism!

More of a spoonerism really.

I haven't read Shaun Wane's comments, but he's got some way to go before his achievements stack up against Nobby's. I'll be interested to see how Wigan go after their half backs have left and they sufffer a bit of adversity. At the moment Wane's still riding on the back of what Maguire did.

I'm parpahrasing from memory as I don't have the article with me, but basically that it was disrespectful to jump into a colleagues shoes so quickly and that he must have had his reasons for doing so.



What's the "ism" when you confuse your spooners with your malaprops then

HLL1969ism.

All of it.


Yes but there ain't a cat in hell's that the new lot have anything remotely like that in mind.


Well, yes, and that's why it's not on any agenda

No, it wouldn't. The uses to which it is put might. I did ask elsewhere when somebody put that they thought it was "underused" as a resource, what they meant; does anybody know how much it is used? I haven't any reason to think that the Bulls marketing have been failing to seize the day. Of course, Akbar & Co. could indeed have a more intensive plan to use the Coral Stand that would bring in much more money, but I don't think it necessarily follows. I mean, we were even on the Prime Minister's radar when they had the secret meeting up there, so marketing can't exactly have been doing that bad a job.

If I were a business consortium with a £1.25m budget for new corporate entertainment facilities then I think I could do better than spend that on a sublease at Odsal.


Based on what? The new owners settling for a team which is crap?


I'm not sure I follow that. Surely any incoming new tenant, given they would either be a tenant, would want to keep everything on-site with a view to maximising use of the site? Would using the Coral Stand for hospitality in an otherwise defunct stadium be sensible? Or have I misunderstood your meaning?

Well, there were plenty on here who were making more or less the same point

This is all fitting too nicely with what was rumoured to be Caisley's intension when he first had the T&A publishing information.

If Noble was so innocent why after Potter came back and his "re-think" is he now advising? Personally, I wasn't too convinced by his statement at the time but I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now, I think that statement was engineered, some good spin to get the fans with him. Potter has publically offered his services to assist in anyway yet Nobby is the one talking to investors?? What we won under him was great, it was our glory years but this shouldn't be influenced by that. I think it is disgusting he is getting involved when Potter has said he will help. They want the youngsters to stay, well they might find without Potter it will be hard to convince them especially when the players have quite clearly demonstrated their loyalty to him over Nobby.

I can't help but now think that Nobby has been involved from the start and that the plan of Tasker, Nobby and Coulby managing for Caisley is ultimately what Akbars is a front for. I hope it isn't true, but something just doesn't feel right at the moment.

Re Shane Wa(r)ne - Well spooners are Googlies & malaprops are Doosras