I was impressed by the numbers. Perhaps they are victims of their own success. Nice place to be at. At least credit to them for biting the bullet and cracking on with the ground. We're still waiting for the first spade to be turned after 50 feckin years so it ill behoves us to snipe at other people's issues caused when they actually DO improvements not just draw them.

Apparently they are building a Superdome but it is delayed because a local supermarket has objected to the planning permission.

FWIW The Lamport Stadium is owned by the local council so any works there happen at the whim of the authorities, not Wolfpack.

Apparently, over the Canadian winter, the pitch is covered by some of sort of inflated dome and local schools and community groups play sport on the pitch. That means that any work on the pitch cannot take place during that period. This explains why they can't even start to lay a new pitch until well into 2018.

The other 'issue' is the weather - which is notoriously icy and snowy in February and March in Toronto (hence, the heated 'dome' on the pitch at Lamport)

It's unfortunate - albeit should not have unforeseen.

I don't think there is anything in the notion of them playing at Odsal, just another person adding 2 and 2 together and coming up with another fake news story. The whole point of them having all their away games in a block in the first part of the season is precisely so they can then play their home games at their home ground. If there had been any credence in them playing 'home' games at Odsal (or anywhere else in the UK) then that would not have been necessary.

We could do with the brass!

What makes you think we'd get any?

Was just gonna say the same. Any rent money for paying there may be paid directly to RFL HQ...

See your point, but then we must get something out of it. We're still the tenants aren't we? If I was renting a house and my landlord suddenly decided that his mates were staying over with me, I'd be pretty miffed, especially if I was expected to put them up for nowt! Clearly I have no knowledge of how any of this works but I can't see us getting nothing.

Can't kick up too much of a fuss otherwise the RFL may insist on us paying our rent.

Plus if we did make a fuss, the RFL might do us another "favour" as compensation for someone else playing in our stadium too. Like another -12 points or witholding of Sky monies....

On a more serious note, the lack of rent we allegedly pay at the moment was my thinking behind why we may not have a full say in Toronto playing there and us not getting a penny out of it. It would be very easy for the RFL to simply say "Toronto need a local stadium for a few games, so either they're playing at Odsal or you lot can start paying us the full rent again, your choice". I don't particularly think they'd be all that wrong in saying that either.

Fev have just confirmed that their game at the end of July will definitely be at the Lamport in Toronto.

It would be an interesting idea.

Not sure how it would fly legally though - I mean, if I leased a house and, because of temporary circumstances, (caused in many respects by the landlord) the landlord agreed to let me stay for nothing I would still be the legal tenant and I don't see how the landlord could then also let it to someone else as well. Well, not unless he'd changed the wording on the lease, of course.

If we were allowed to sublet....maybe, who knows, but the RFL would no doubt re-consider our rent free option on the grounds that we'd just come into some money!

In any case, I think the idea that they are simply playing a block of away games at the start of the season is likely to be correct. It's only a slightly(?) longer version of what has happened when clubs sharing with soccer clubs have to wait for new pitches to be laid.

It would obviously depend on the terms of the lease. i.e. do we only have use of it on match days. I remember similar arguments when we were using Valley Parade. An argument could be made if we still have the same use then we are not being disadvantaged and therefore should pay the same rent.

Other rumours of fixture changes abound elsewhere on RLFans. One surrounds he uncertainty of the financial viability of Salford Red Devils. No-one worth reading (especially Bulls fans that know all too well about the horrors of administration/liquidation) would wish that upon a fellow club. However, one side rumour does suggest that Bradford may benefit from the above sad situation were it to come to pass. Salford are meeting with the RFL soon (as also mentioned on their fans' breakaway forum).

Don't see how Salford situation changes anything. Rimmers Rule book means they would just start in SL on -6 for a first offence. The rest of the clubs may appreciate the extra Sky money though.

The willingness of people to bankroll (up to a point) a phoenix club was there after Bradford's liquidation. Rimmer's Rules could only lead to your suggested outcome were that also to be the case in Salford. Anyway probably best to wait and see what transpires at the meeting.

Think you're over egging it to say bankroll, banknote is closer.

Could be correct, I guess, though we do have (sort of) precedents of other uses in the big truck events at Odsal that have been held. We (the club) have been giving the advertising some stick which more than suggests it's 'our' event, and there are also the concerts where I guess the loss was purely ours..

That analogy would work if you were renting the property 24x7 however the Bulls are only renting Odsal 1 day in every 2 weeks, and therefore what the landlord does on the other 13 days out of 14 is entirely their choice. Obviously this becomes an issue if the landlord rent the property out on the same day that you have the property...

However I think this is a none story, in that there is a period of time that the ground is not available due to renovation work, so they are playing away from home during this period, this happens at a number of grounds in the UK (especially where the ground is shared with a football team). I accept that this is an extreme case. Halifax are Toronto's first home game and as such have been put on warning that there is a danger that the work could overrun. would be guaranteed to overrun in the UK i suspect.

Not sure where you've got the idea that the Bulls only "rent" the ground for '1 day in 14'. It's actually a lease, and the lease is over many years - 100+. I doubt the landlord (Bfd Met) have any intention of leasing to anyone else and we, as a sub tenant of the primary leaseholder (The RFL), currently have full use.

The club's offices are there, open normal office hours through the week, for 12 months per year. The club shop, normally open six, none-match days per week, is also located at the ground and the banqueting suite, used for club and other functions is open at anytime, as and when needed. Some training is also done there through the week.

I totally agree that it's a none-story, though.

Bulliac,

I was trying to talk about the analogy of renting a property (which was the comparison that DrFeelgood used). I am sure that the lease agreement covers a lot more than just the Bradford Bull fixtures on match days. Though I suspect it does not give the Bulls a 24x7 usage of the whole venue. An example of this being that other events are run there, for example "The Extreme Stunt Show" run earlier this month.

If the Bulls get a say about what events are run and are getting revenue from these other events that is brilliant, but I suspect that they don't. Which was my point of the original post.

They do. If they didn't, why would they devote any of their own resources to marketing them? The marketing of those events came from the club, not from the RFL or the Council.

Absolutely. The idea that as tenant you kind of "share" possession and use with your landlord is frankly silly.

But, it is the Head Lease that was for 150 years. The previous club when the RFL bought the lease, got a sub lease for 30 years. So I assume all we have is a sublease for the balance of that 30 years.

HC,

Potentially for a number of reasons, the Bulls may get advertising revenue (just like any other event paying for advertising in the Bulls programs), the Bulls may get a cut of any tickets they sell, it could be part of their lease agreement (so as to keep lease costs down) that they have to market them, etc.

Question for you, if the Bulls do have a say in these events and get significant revenue in from them, why would the Bulls not be pushing these event to happen every weekend (even 2 or 3 times a week), since the extra income stream from this has to be huge. The likes of Dewsbury are running regular car boot sales for this type of revenue, surely the events that could be run at Odsal would generate significantly higher revenue.

Take this with my tongue firmly in my cheek, but if the Bulls are getting a say and revenue from these events, then maybe they should have been pushing these big time since the significant extra revenue may have meant that you would have never been in administration.

Maybe they learnt from the 80's extravaganza...

Exactly. Some people seem to think that all you have to do is put up a few posters and make a killing, but life doesn't work like that. You can get people to your events but unless your net income exceeds the organisational and running costs then there's not a lot of point.

I think that more use of the stadium to generate more income is actually something that the people from time to time running the club may actually have thought of. It isn't revelations now is it?

If you know of something that will make a killing, then why not offer to run it at Odsal, hire the stadium and keep all the profit for yourself. I'm sure they would agree as long as you paid and covered all expenses and produced adequate insurance cover.

They already do run a car boot.