ok, just to clarify.

The office/shop block at Valley Parade was sold to Prupim (part of prudential IIRC) when City entered administration c2003. they paid an annual rent that was a significant figure running to hundreds of thousands per annum.

in Summer 2011, Bantams holdings ( a new company with Lawn, Rhodes and Rhodes as directors, seperate from the football club) bought it from prupim and let the club use it at a massively reduced rent, thouhgt to be almost nil.

A few weeks ago the building was sold to the one in a million charity, and a profit was made which the directors are pumping into the club as a means of assembling a more competitive playing squad. The shop closed last weekend, and the building will reopen as a free school in September.

Gordon Gibb, through the Flamingo land pension fund, owns Valley Parade and charges a massive rent for BCFC to play there, and run the stadium. He will not negotiate a sale of VP as the rental income is currently a better investment than a typical pension fund, and he will not communicate / negitiate with the club whilst Julian Rhodes, or his father is involved.

Those figures are a bit misleading iirc. Figures for vp are total grass area hoarding to hoarding. Odsal figures are just the pitch size and don't include areas behind the tryline or between touchlines and hoardings.

The size of the Odsal pitch is irrelevant as it is an existing pitch which already meets minimun requirements. The issue is moving to a "new" ground we would need to meet the mimimum standards as laid out in the operational rules or we wouldn't be allowed to stage games (when we were there previously it was only allowed due to its temporary nature IIRC) When considering the length of the playing pitch goal line to goal (88m), plus minimum in goal areas (2x6m), plus safe distance to the advertising hoardings (2x3m) means an absolute minimum requirement of 106m. The Bradford city website lists the pitch as 113yards (103m) hoarding to horading. Its doable, don't get me wrong, but it would involve removing the front rows of some seats to extend the pitch, and even then we are getting only the absolute minimum length and not a full size pitch.

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/operational_rules[/url
[urlhttp://www.bradfordcityfc.co.uk/page/CoralWindowsStadium/0,,10266,00.html[/url

Having said all that, if the work can be done I could see a move to VP in our future... if we have one.

Not sure about some of this. Thereisno minimum rl pitchsize. Max.quoted size. Post to post 100m x 68m. Pitch at vp is 104m x 64m playing area. Not total grass area. As for distance to boundry wall. It is still greate rthan headingy. The in goal area is a little small. However superleague passed vp as a suitable .ground a few years ago..
sorry for badprintng and gaps. Trying to write on tablet in spain

There is I'm afraid a very clearly defined minimum rl pitch size and playing area, the figures in my previous reply were taken staight out of the RFL operational rules and would be applied to any new ground move.

VP was only passed previously as it was a temporay situation, for a permanent move we would need to abide by the operational rules. Comparison to any excisting ground is irrelevant, it only matters if a "new" ground meets the rules or not, as vp stands I don't think it does, but we might need to get the tape measure out again.

No need to apologise for gaps and bad spelling (Im on a pc and has no such excuse

) But you should indeed however apologise for being in sunny Spain and not Yorkshire like I am

Cheers mate. On my way back tomorrow interesting info.thanks for t hat

No worries, enjoy your last day

i'd be quite upset to see us leave odsal. I don't think I could take the kids to VP. nowhere for them to run around.

Speaking of last days, I can empathise, writing this on a tablet in the departure lounge at Paphos airport

You are a damm sight better at it than me

Manningham?

I used to watch City a lot in the 80s and 90s and Valley Parade was a brilliant ground to watch rugby or football. The 2001 play off semi against Wigan was a brilliant atmosphere. The last few times I've been the huge empty stand is an atmosphere killer but the Kop is still loud.

as a fan of both City and Valley Parade, I can say, on a day when the grounds are full, both are brilliant in their own way. At VP, the proximity to the action is great.

whenever groundsharing is mentioned, you get the fans of both sides slagging the other ones ground off, which is sometimes misguided, and often the result of a lack of local knowledge and one bad experience as a result!

I am from South Bradford, living all my 35 years (until last summer) in Wibsey and Woodside. Odsal was convenient for me, and on a summers day witha 15000+ crowd is unbeatable.

As a City season ticket holder, I go to VP twenty odd times a year too! I love the atmosphere there!

In all my years following City and Bulls/Northern, My Car has vandalised more at Bulls matches.

I can find plenty of parking around VP and Odsal that is free and trouble free.

I can find plenty of pubs / clubs within a 15 minute walk of both grounds.

Public transport is plentiful at both grounds, and VP is particularly handy for rail users.

VP is harder to get to by car by anyone coming via the m62. but normally on a Friday evening / Sunday afternoon when the BUlls would be kicking off, it would add only about 10-15 minutes to your journey time.

VP has great bars and boxes, and more of them than Odsal.

VP's pitch is too small for an RL licence at the moment.

Odsal does not have enough seats to satisfy football's authorities should City harbour hopes of promotion to the championship.

When it rains at VP, you can stay dry. most people in similar weather at Odsal, cannot.

I think we're going to have to get used to a lack of atmosphere wherever we're playing in the next couple of years.

I've never been anti VP. Didnt mind our 2 year stay. In principle I'm in favour of ground sharing, although it really needs to be as roughly equal partners with equal signage etc.

But I do think a move to VP now would be the final straw for many fans. Its one thing to move grounds on a temporary basis when the squad is one of the best in the club's history. But a permanent move coinciding with a drastic cut in the already limited squad and a likely large increase in season ticket prices? I dread to think what the attendances would be.

We need to look at with pragmatism. Each year BCFC sell their season tickets to a deadline, then the BOd meet with the manager to discuss player budget wne costs have been taken into account. The publicity is basically, you want a squad with a chance of doing well, so show us your money. Thats how BCFC have managed to put prices up by 50% this year and still sell 8000 tickets.

if we start afresh as a newco, having been thru admin, we need to learn to cut our cloth accordingly. If that means losing some people along the way, so be it. We've bounced back before and we will again.

And would we swap the trophies between 97-05 for being more stable now? almost certainly not. Just like as a City fan, I would not swap our two years in the prem for the last 10 years as a lower end, but financially stable championship club!

I think the overwhelming majority of fans can recognise the difference between just deciding to do something and pretty much having no choice. Well, I would hope so anyway.

You won't go far on here talking sence like that....

Fairweather fans will always look for an excuse, though I accept the recent events have tested the most loyal. But I am sure an improvement in form would soon see a resurgence in attendances as people jump on the bandwagon.

Unless the Board were to publish some extremely pursuasive and believable figures, I dont think the less hard core fans would accept that there is no choice.

Indeed; given that relatively few fans accepted the club's financial situation for years, or the warnings from those few of us who ploughed the lonely furrow that the cash was running out and the club's options were severely restricted as a result.

Oh, and Orford and his vermin agent can still rot in hell as far as I am concerned.

I think a move to VP could be accepted by most if it didn't mean cutting the squad to the bone. There are several players whose deals are up this year but if we retained the best of the home grown ones that may be bearable, but would leave us very weak up front without Manuakafoa/Hargreaves/Elima.

Losing our best young players as well as our better seasoned pros and moving to VP would ony mean us being in this situation again very soon.

the only problem with that , is our season tickets are sold in oct/nov time whereas most clubs have done there shopping in july and august when the anti tamper deadline ends. so unless they were a) sold early or b) sold with the fans made aware the money raised would be affective from the 2nd season following, if you know what i mean, the ticket sales wouldnt reflect that years budget . Another problem is the player pool, 500 professional footballers were released into the pool this year at the end of their contracts, if you consider the make up of rugby league and the lack of under contract signings then even if you say 5 out of contract players per club then we'd still only have 55 players to chose from of whom maybe ten to fifteen would be any good

I said it looked like the sensible option financially, not one that would enable us win the league!

yeah i agree, it is good financial sense and i wasnt knocking the idea , i was just trying to say that the mechanics of rugby league would make it an hard to implement strategy

Not really sure what 'persuasive and believable' figures have to do with it to be honest. Especially when you're talking about the great majority.

For sure, no-one likes to think they've been shat on, but everyone, irrespective of their POV on how we got here or who was to blame, must have worked out that we're currently miles from where we want to be and no-one in the engine room seems to be able to locate a paddle? What's more I'd guess it would be the less hard core, who maybe haven't followed all the ups and downs as assiduously as some others, who would probably be more accepting. They (we) will moan. You can bet your bloody life on that, but ultimately, all most people want is a club to support. Answers to questions would be very nice, but for Mr. Average it isn't at the core, imo.

Personally, I have absolutely no wish to go to VP, but if it was the only way to allow the club to move on then I'll accept it, very reluctantly, but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about. And, when it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter a jot who tells me it is necessary, Caisley, Coulby, Hood or Uncle Tom Cobley, cos I've no way of knowing one way or the other whether it's true or if they're lying through their teeth. That though has been the situation since 1863 when you think about it.