Profit is income exceeding costs, not rocket science admittedly. Unless the RFL are significantly increasing Bradford's rent they must be inheriting a loss making business where there is no profit, otherwise why would Bradford want to assign? There must be opportunities for the RFL to save money/make money on running Odsal longer term but the bit I was questioning was the statement it will not take them long, whcih I am still not clear on.

Nah, Adey, first thing you've not got [iquite [/iright. You see, it's his therapists job, so he has to [ipretend[/i he can see some potential, however, just like the rest of us he also wishes Fax4 would just jog on and stop bothering him..........

This is part of something I posted on the VT, and it very much reflects some of the chat last night:

The "predatory" comment comes from these prospective buyers knowing that the Bulls are struggling for income right now, and are at a considerable disadvantage compared with most of their peers in having no wealthy or corporate owner to either bankroll them or to give them a fallback to deal with unforeseen costs. It is this lack of any fallback cushion, more than the lack of a day-to-day hand-in-pocket sugar daddy, that has been most dangerous for the club. The day to day constraints they can handle, and have been handling; an (another...) unexpected financial shock they could not. Therefore, the club's continuing occupancy at Odsal was becoming increasingly risky, since it is the stadium from which most of the opportunities for such an unexpected shock seemed likely to eventuate. The predators seemed very well aware of this, so clearly felt in a strong position in their discussions.

The RFL deal provides the club now with the financial cushion they have so significantly lacked in recent years, and removes any necessity to move out of Odsal on adverse terms. So the club's management can plan for the future with far more confidence. Other clubs have either their rich owner or their own stadium assets to provide such a cushion, or do not face the scale of exposures that the Bulls do. the Bulls' situation was pretty unique, and a unique solution has been found to it. It is quite clear to me that the management are very relieved that they have now put in place a situation where the club can handle a big unexpected financial shock. before, it could not - and the directors therefore had a responsibility to adjust and scale the club's activities accordingly, which was looking like having to leave Odsal and its scope for providing unexpected shocks behind.


It was also clear from the discussions that the transfer to the RFL is NOT the sort of zero-sum costs scenario that would make you wonder how it could be a win-win. The Bulls hled an asset from which they could not realise value. The RFL has access to external financing and funding, to cover both capital and revenue expenditure, that the Bulls do not - or may have only at penal cost. Put the two together, and you can realise value from an asset AND generate additional external funding (probably for future development) that was not there before. So its 2+2=10 not 2+2=4, if I understand it right. Also, the new arrangement allows costs (for the Bulls) to be evened out and be predictable.

Incidentally: Bulls continue to run Odsal, not the RFL. The deal is a financial one - sale and leaseback, effectively - that gives also gives the RFL rights and opportnities regarding future development.

My suspicion is drawn from the reports which speak of being safe from "predators".

As you know, the lease belonged to the club and only the board/shareholders could sign it away, but in a situation where the largest shareholder is, to some extent 'estranged' from the club, my gut feeling is that the board may have felt there was a possibility that people who didn't have the club's best interests at heart [icould[/i have bought into the club and then used their position to bring in the wrong kind of developments. Ones designed, more with profits in mind than what would be the most beneficial for the rugby club, shall we say.

Obviously I don't have any knowledge, and it may be totally wide of the mark, but why mention predators if it had no relevance, particularly when PH has said (and to be honest I believe him) that there was no financial imperative?

PS written before I read Adey's post above. I won't edit it though.

What you're asking comes back to the questions I put up earlier really. It will depend on how much the rent is compared to the lease, who is paying the upkeep, who has the franchise rights (or if they are split) and how clever the RFL are in using Odsal for other events. Answers to these will affect how quickly the RFL realise back their investment. Also I've assumed the reported 7 figure sum is more like £1m than £9m, if its not then that obviously changes things.

Should have put the bit about not taking long to realise a profit at the end really. Wasn't just including the rent, although given they've said its "market" rent and we were paying a peppercorn lease, you'd think the profit margin would be pretty good on the rent alone.

Thanks Adey, you are at strong risk of being the world's first decent Tory. If the RFL had to secure external funding why has there been no other third party willing to come in & invest (or were there only 'predators' willing to do this in this market?) &/or why couldn't the BUlls raise that finance, risk I presume?

That's another part of the conundrum I have been musing over. I have never joined in the sniping at the RFL but, as with the Bulls, I would guess they are in this game for the love as much as the money (Lewis aside, who came from tennis but I think has done a fantastic job generally) & are not neccessarily the most cut-throat of businessmen, so why should they be able to market Odsal any better than the businessmen who run the Bulls, excluding the RFL being able to utilise Odsal for other RL games?

Didn't spot this on the first read through. Does that imply we are still paying the maintenance costs then? And that the RFL can't use the ground for other purposes (RFL HQ, internationals etc.)?

Its actually these potential other games or other uses of the facilities that I mean. Normal SL and CC matches are down to the Bulls (with us hopefully benefitting from the franchises for those games). See if Adey has anything to say about my previous post, may clear things up abit.

At the end of the day, I'm sat at home off work idly speculating!

I'd guess that the RFL can ask to use any ground, it's usually considered an honour to be fair. As for the HQ; why not? There's loads of space to put up a separate office block on the site, so I can see no reason why not. I don't suppose it's at the forefront of their thinking but who knows in the future.

I can see smoke rising from all around my Leeds office at the mis-use of that one.

I think a combination of factors. The RFL is clearly a far better investment and credit risk than most RL clubs, not least us. The RFL, being a priofessional sport administration and control body, has access to resources that an individual club cannot have. And the RFL has the finances and funding to be able to even out what would to us be significant fluctuations in costs. Also, the RFL will (I believe) see the long-term potential in the Odsal site for the benefit of RL, and is in a position to take the long view. A commercial investor is looking for pretty guaranteed commercial returns within a set time frame. That last point may be the most significant of all.

Odsal -HQ of RL. I can see it now. The RFL would make a mint selling Rot Hall, easily enough to finance a plush palatial des res for the RFL proudly sitting atop Odsal. Or even as part of a new stand complex. Way to go.

Mis-use TT?

'T is the future and you/they know it!! In any case the Shedingley lot always did have an exaggerated sense of their own importance.....as any true, red-blooded Cas fan would immediately recognise.

Apparantly they are moving the George Hotel to Odsal brick by brick

A good trick, seeing it's a stone building!



But that's OK - as long as they don't bring Stevo with it . . .

I must say I find the arrogant, big city smugness on the board quite appealing for some reason. It goes completely against my normal inclinations.

...... and that's quite enough of those, thank you, this is a family forum

Well you can turn off the board, but you're stuck in the office..

Indeed.

Since, if it was not, we would be obliged to seek further information regarding just exactly how you come to be familiar with his "inclinations", would we not?

I've just had a walk round campus. It's like a film set for Made in Chelsea. OK yah.

Wow you got sold an awful lot of bull by 'Duke Peter of Hood' didnt you?!

Ouch! Terrible situation and I really hope you can get things sorted but...Adeybull? I'd go into hiding for a while.

Yes. I did.

I was lied to by people I trusted, and made to look a fool. Not for the first time.

It will never happen again. Trust me.