Heard this on radio Leeds driving home tonight, supposed to more on this at 6 o'clock, interview with Peter Hood also.

For the RFL, I presume securing the future of a big name in the game. Maybe they think they could do something with the stadium too, (I mean by way of use, not rebuilding) though I didn't know they were flush.

We have the rest of a long lease. At the end of that lease we as tenants would have had to move out (or negotiate a new one). However the Council was the owner of the land. We just had a temporary right to occupy it. If Adey is right, then the Council would still be the owner of the land, the RFL would be the new tenant, and we would basically be a sub-tenant of the RFL. Like you renting a house, and subletting it or part of it to someone else.

So how would the RFL buying the lease secure the future of Odsal from 'predators'?

I think most of the doubt about the RFLs motive and any national RL stadium plans etc, not RDs very brief message.

I suspect this will be the hot topic, at the next fans forum.

The get one of the best support clubs in Super League, they get more money from Attendence from us than say Salford for example because we bring in more. Also RFL now have a foothold in a stadium in Super League and I rekon within a few years they will develop Odsal so it can be used as a Quarter/Semi - Final stadium and they will get their money back this way. This also allows Odsal to be the second stadium to be purpose built for Rugby League hosting semi-finals. Halliwell Jones being the other.

Also I can see us jumping up the 'Most Hated RL Clubs List' a few places.

I know this probably won't be well received, but why the hell should it be in the RFLs best interest to secur anyone's future, surely that is what their magical licensing system and all the independent scrutinising that goes with it.
I've read all of th posts on this thread, and it's very interesting and sensible stuff that has been posted.
The main thing I've taken from this, and please correct me if I have misinterpreted what has been written, is that it will secure your imediate future.
Nobody appreciates the terrifying abyss more than the Wakefield fan, but it brings two questions to mind;
Why were Wakefield offered no assistance, when our fan actually had on it?
And if the Bulls don't own odsal, how will it actually help?
Good luck whatever, I bare absolutely no malice to the Bulls, I just can,t comprehend the actions of our games governors.

You'd have to ask the RFL

You'd have to ask Wakefield Council

Taken from Radio Leeds

The RFL has stated "we have no immediate plans to re-develop Odsal Stadium"

and Peter Hood stated "Odsal is our home, and we will be staying here forever"

It may be that the rfl are to add a couple more burger vans and revamping it as an overnight stobard lorry park.

Bradford Council might not own the ground and collect the ground rent, it could be someone else. So the RFL may have bought the head lease, hence as Adey says, the Bulls have an underlease. people collect (usually paying very little) the freehold side of a head lease, collect any ground rent, and wait to see if an opportunity comes along. If that is the case, it is better that the Council sell their leaseholder side of the agreement to the RFL which means that there is still one of the two parties to the head lease with an interest in RL at Odsal.

definitions as follows (no liability accepted for etc etc)

Freehold= as much ownership as one can hold (umlimited by time), subject only to the Crown's superior title.
Leasehold= ditto but limited by time (whether 999yrs. or one day!)
Head Lease (correctly used) = lease created by freeholder, esp. where there's an underlease too.
Underlease= lease created by leaseholder, usually for same period as leaseholder's Head Lease less the final x days.

What does WMDC have to do with this when it's the RL's governing body that's just purchased your ground.

Because Bradford Council owned our ground.

Paving the way for a stadium in London owned by the RFL.

Until/if the RFL explain what's in it for them and RL in general with this deal, then I can understand other clubs being annoyed. From a Bulls point of view, assuming this reduces our expenditure on maintaining the ground, then good skills Mr Hood.

Curious as to how long our lease with the RFL is and what the long term options are for us though.

They still own it. The Council now let it to the RFL who let it to us.

What this all means has yet to come out so turn up early at the members forum on 1 Feb.

However from a Bulls fan perspective I'd like to know:

i) Are the RFL picking up the tab for maintenance of the ground or is it still us?
ii) What rent are we paying the RFL? We hardly paid anything under the previous arrangement IIRC.
iii) How long does this arrangement last?
iv) Does the RFL plan to pay for improvements to the ground or just meet H&S requirements?

As a RL fan I can see fans of other clubs wanting some answers out of the RFL on this, especially if we're now free of the massive burden of upkeep of the stadium. Why should we be so lucky? Not that I'm complaining

But it does beg the question...

the devil is in the detail

Well I didn't see that comming! What do the rfl want with our little dump of a ground?

BTW good one Roger.

VBecause nobody can buy it if the owner doesn't want to seel. The council are skint and need every penny they can get. Sounds to me like the council were ready to cash in, leaving us stranded at that hell hole Valley parade.

It's defintely good news for the Bulls. I can understand why other clubs will be veyr annoyed, but it doesn't sound like the RFL are going to develop the stadium. Lets be honest, the RFL would never kick the Bulls out no matter how bad odsal gets.

Well there's the members forum next week. Email Stuart Duffy with your questions

Has that actually been spelled out anywhere? RFL statement and piece on T&A website reads more like they've bought the actual land rather than the lease.

with regards to points i) and ii) as I understood previous arrangement we paid the maintenance costs in exchange for getting the peppercorn rent. If we're now paying a 'market value' rent then surely that means the RFL are now paying the maintenace costs. If we're paying maintenance AND rent then we'd be significantly worse offf.

regarding improvements, because we werent paying rent then we got benefits from improved facilities that we provided (i.e. income from coral stand etc) at expense of having to pay out for the improvements ourselves. Now If we paid for improvements we'd presumably see increases in the 'market value' rent as the value of the stadium rose meaning its even less financially viable for us to improve stadium.

At moment this is only speculation and there are certainly a lot of clarifications needed at forum next week if not sooner. Statements from both RFL and Bulls are less than clear to say the least.

No they wouldn't would they and they have just illustrated that with their involvement with Odsal.
They should NOT get involved in the ownership/ leasing of any ground, what the hell sort of message does that send to other clubs - and not just my club -Wakefield. Cas fans will be just as sore as wakey fans.
No fault of the Bull fans - you must be elated. Congratulations on apparent life membership of Superleague!

It does but I think Adey clarified it a few pages back. It's not exactly clear.



We would but I can't see the club signing up for a worse deal unless they were about to be made homeless. Besides we wouldn't be able to continue financially if we had to pay a massive rent and pay for all the upkeep too.



Depends what's in the contracts I suppose. I hope someone experienced in such matters has gone through all that. We don;t want to be sold a pup.



Agreed.

So what does this mean for us?