I'm not so sure, they may be able to come up with some compromise on the OSV to improve facilities and erect a Sports Centre - make no mistake they certainly want to but as ALL parties accept improving Odsal stadium is not a cheap option for anybody.

There may be a shiny new stadium down the road open to sharing soon ..... I believe Caisley said that the possible incumbent club wouldn't have been able to "afford to open the gates" of the original Tesco scheme.

Would be ironic if you ended up sharing their stadium

If Bob Blackburn isn't talking complete tosh of course ...

The plan mooted in the T&A about a stadium for BPA near Phoenix Park is even less likely to happen than OSV. Having had a look at the finances on Companies House I'd suggest he couldn't afford a coat of paint for the gates of the BPA stadium let alone anything else.

I think that the Bulls are going to end up at VP as it will be their only option. Bulls fans may have to make a choice as to whether they want to support the club at VP or not have a club at all. Having said all that a move there isn't an easy solution. The Bulls may have to pay back some money to get out of Odsal and that cost may be prohibitive, unless the council write it off so they can dump the Odsal millstone once and for all.

just out of interest has anyone added up what council has spent on reports and studies into odsal during lifetime of present scheme? Bet it would pay a decent chunk of final bill.

Imo promotion of scheme has been totally wrong. It's always described as a new stadium for the bulls, when all we actually get out of it is a stand on the popular side. rest of stadium remains the same. Its actually a repplacement sport for the dilapidated richard dunn , which also has a stand for us and some changing rooms hanging off the back. If it had been promoted in this way imo we'd be a lot further on and would have avoided a lot of the critiscm with regard to council financing a private company. Also what a lot of the detractors are forgetting when they say we're expecting a handout is that we are providing the land for the project. The council may hold the freehold but we have an irrevocable 120 year lease. We could move to valley parade and retain odsal as a training ground for next 120 years and block council from re-developing the site if we were so inclined.

That's stretching things a bit Mat.

1) You were given 4. something million pounds to take that land on, will that be handed back?
2) You couldn't just move to Valley Parade, because you would have to hand a large chunk of the 4. something million pounds back.

It's a large part of what the stadium needs to bring it in line with modern requirements.
Look at Headingley. It's an old ground too but improvements have been made in stages and there's not been any suggestion that they should move out - even though there's no parking and the local traffic situation on matchdays is terrible. Odsal ticks a few boxes that Headingley never will.

A re-developed pop side with bars, food outlets and toilets would take us a long way towards what we need. It means that people can come and watch a game on a wet day and stay dry. That's the bottom line.
We can't move on until we have at least that.

I don't think we're heading for VP. Not permanently anyway. I think the fact that the Bulls are involved in the project now and that it has some serious backing from other bodies within the city will ultimately get the sports centre, pop side roof and new carparking etc built.
If the Bulls were to stay well out of the whole process then I'd be worried but it does appear that we're a central part of the whole project.

It's my understanding that the settlement of the 1986 agreement meant that the Bulls were paid in a lump sum what they would have received up to 2014 (think that was the year but could be wrong). If the Bulls move out of Odsal before then they would have to pay the cash for the intervening years but not the whole sum that had been paid.

I know its stretching it a bit but I wanted to make point. I dont think its a course of action the bulls would seriously contemplate.
We are contributing to the scheme and have identified significant sources of extra funding to minimise contribution council would have to make and the end result is a new stand for us and a new modern sports for south bradford owned and operated by the council. If the sports village falls through the council will still have to find money to replace richard dunn but doing it as a standalone project is bound to cost more.

The Bulls are contributing nothing at all financially to the scheme apart from concededing in the last plans that they would agree to decorate the areas of the OSV that fell into their exclusive use. In the grand scheme of things that can hardly be called a contribution.

Now I know that the council are not great but it was they who involved Bradford College and it is they who are paying the Project Manager from the college for his input ( for all the lack of progress made ).


How would building a standalone replacement for Richard Dunn's cost MORE than building a replacement for Richard Dunn's AND a new stand with associated facilities for the Bulls bearing in mind that at the last count the vast majority of monies identified were from council land or council capital receipts.

When the numbers were presented previously and the shortfall was in the region of £5m ( including a pool being built ) then it strikes me that the Council CAN afford a standalone Sports Centre is the associated facilities for the Bulls were not involved.

Make no mistake they want to deliver both but financially it is difficult

No it isn't its that Council's by nature are fiscally incompentent, BMDC being one of the worst in that aspect!

maybe not financially but we are contributing the use of the land, which whilst the council owns the freehold we are the leaseholders for the next 120 years which is a lot longer than the lifetime of the proposed buildings. Council can do nothing with odsal without our agreement as long as we stay within terms of lease.

council on other hand need the money from sale of richard dunn land to finance building of new sports . If they dont sell richard dunn site they've got to find a large sum of money to build a sports . By combining the two sites it works out cheaper.

You keep saying this Mat, but it doesn't make sense.

The council paid you millions for you to take responsibility for the land.

You're now losing money maintaining it.

So it's hardly a sacrifice to "contribute the use of the land" is it?

why does it have to be a sacrifice? We're contributing something which is necessary for the project to proceed. by doing so and merging the odsal/richard dunn sites, The dunns site can be sold and the money used to build the new stand/sports . everybody wins ( unless your only interested in sports facilities in keighley

). If the council go it alone and replace richard dunn they cant sell the site so they have to find the money to build a new sports . If bulls go it alone we have to find money to build a new stand.

You ( and a lot of others ) seem to think that the development is owed to the Bulls when it's only 4 years ago that you took the £5m and peppercorn lease to maintain the ground the yourself. If want to talk about sticking to the lease then ......


Seriously the council would be able to build a replacement Dunn's at Dunn's if they wanted to. You need them far more than they need you unfortunately.

Bradford council accounts are pretty solid and they have significant funds tucked away ( some of which are actually identified already to be put towards OSV ) Justification for spending more is a completely different issue.

How many Ilkley residents would advocate spending Council Tax payers money on OSV at the expense of more local schemes ( apart from the obvious one of course )

??

If you want to throw stones then maybe you should look a little closer to home at a successful, private company that is unable and unwilling to contribute to it's own future whilst blaming all and sundry for that situation.

I dont doubt that they could build a new dunns if they had to but surely it makes more financial sense to sell the dunns site and build the sports on bulls site using money raised by sale to finance build. hence less cost to taxpayer. Im not saying we dont need council just that there are benefits to both parties from merging the two sites.

Nah, that's rubbish. Bulls' current admin cannot be expected to accept responsibility for a set of circumstances that originated before the majority of them were born.

Personally I think it should be spent on Cas' new ground.

Surely the current board, minus that bloke who used to be your chairman, are responsible for the current situation? i.e. saddled with high running costs.

What was the alternative though? The council had the club over a barrel. I posted the link previously, [url=http://www.bradfordbulls.co.uk/bb_news_full.asp?newsid=202here it is again[/url.



Bullseye identified Bulls' missed opportunity as coming when they failed to move in at BPA. Since then, they've been battling against the circumstances that are incredibly deep-rooted.

Here's a hypothetical - had the M1 and the mainline railway been put through Bradford in stead of Leeds, the land VP stands on would have been worth much more and City would have had more incentive to have moved to Odsal. Had the refuse under the main stand caught alight during the night rather than during a game, many lives would have been saved which would obvously be by far and away the main benefit - however, the club would not have had the huge emotional tie to the ground that has proved a major impediment to any move south. I give just two examples but there are many more.

Whatever part individual Bulls officials have played in the club's woes, it's minor compared to the effect of circumstances utterly beyond their control.

Oh yes the main benefit was obviously the 56 people's lives who would have been saved but while we have a chance let's not forget to mention that there would have benefits to the Bulls as well.

I may be accused if being too emotive ( and there's good reason ) with regard to any mention of the fire but City fans were tied to VP before the fire too. It's the club's history. You know much like the Bulls fans who refused to attend or the ones who complained about every little thing while spending two seasons at VP.

OK, there's probably no way to put across the sentiment I wanted to in a forum posting. Please take my word that I don't mean to be glib even if that is how it comes across. My point was that what occured that afternoon had longstanding effects on the city's sports clubs. How great that effect was we can debate, albeit with difficulty as already seen because it is easy to come across as being callous about the deaths and serious injuries suffered by so many people.

Lots of football league clubs have left their home ground in the past couple of decades. That it would be understandably much more of a wrench for City was the point I inelegantly was trying to make.

[url=http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/3229304.Morrisons_boss_blasts_Blears_for_not_calling_Saints_stadium_inquiry/Morrisons boss blasts Blears for not calling Saints stadium inquiry[/url

Sounds like if our scheme had gone before Blears instead Byers (where is he now?), we would have been fine...

Agreed regarding Phoenix Park. Besides, its not going to be a 20,000 capacity stadium. Bob Blackburn said on the BPA forum that he asked for 20,000 in the hope that they'd compromise for something less but still significant, probably about half the size of that.

Thats buck passing big style, I don't blame them for hesitating considering the mulitude of cocks ups this Council has presided over in the last two decades. Thats probably why they are a succesful private Company!