I think the smaller squad is a 'no brainer', but surely, at a time when crowds are likely to fall and income from competition sources is reduced, buying the lease and the ground is going to take away massively from what we have to spend on the team?

Weren't we supposed to have a smaller squad this year? Ferres said something like he expected us to stay full time on a trimmed squad of 30 to 24. What happened there? Has anyone asked about this at a fans forum?

even more than last season. And that was even before the new coach arrived.

I can't recollect the question being asked and even less can I recollect it being answered and unless many were on BOGOF I can't aimagine how it came about.

Perhaps it should be raised? It's a massive change of heart, and likely an expense change of heart too.

I disagree regarding the ground. If they can find or raise the capital it will be seen as an asset - and a substantial asset. Of course there are risks and some will immediately accuse Marc Greeen of merely wanting to recoup his money.
But the prospect of not paying rent and using/ developing the ground as they wish must be a risk worth taking.

Perhaps the statement regarding squad size was based on the number of membership sales? I've noticed that there appears to be far more people paying on the gate this year so perhaps the money generated on match days has resulted in a larger player budget than initially projected?

, then it comes down to being paid from current income, or from future income if we go down the HP route, which is exactly where I see problems.

At a guess, I think many would regard anything which cuts against getting the best possible team to attempt promotion, or lacking ambition as many have already described such a move, would cause even more people to give up on following the club. I definitely wouldn't say it was wrong to pursue buying the ground per se, just that maybe now isn't the best time?

Clearly the club hasn't got money to buy the ground and I suspect would have a less than gold-plated creditworthiness to borrow large sums. So the club isn't going to be the buyer / owner.

If Green buys the ground then Green will own the ground. (If a limited company buys the ground then effectively whoever owns the shares in that company will own the ground). Obviously it would make it much easier to do whatever we - i.e. he - wanted in terms of any development (but for which he would obviously also have to pay).

I would be certain that whoever buys the ground will want rent from the club - otherwise its just dead money.

Well, there's an article in the T&A about finishing places and prize money. There's £300k between 1st and 4th. It then drops by another £200k for 5th place.
I really don't believe that the club can afford to finish below 4th and in fact a 4th place finish might be squeezing the purse strings too

Are we sure the rules have definitely been changed regarding prize money? I haven't seen anything and my understanding has always been that it is based on positions after the middle 8's.

As far as the squad goes for next season to me it all comes down to Smith. None of us really know what sort of person he is. I would guess hid dad has told him to do it his way and not just go along with other people. I also am not worried about losing so called big names as these people have also played poorly this year.

I would say to smith "go for it" in terms of a clear out and bringing in his own players. I won't miss Gaskell as he seems to have been part time and not on top form. We already have a new full back, a proven number 7 and a very promising stand off - so a good start from Smith. I would let Purtell go and see if smith can find a good young centre.

Smith is the unknown quantity now and I am looking forward to the off season changes to see what he is made of. A good run in the middle eights will be a bonus right now.

To be right, [igetting[/i to the middle eights would be the bonus right now..

Isn't this similar to what happened with regards to the previous owners of Bradford City. If that is the case then there are certain rules that would be followed dependant upon how the purchase of the ground is set up. It would not necessarily mean that the Bulls would get the ground at a cheaper rent.

Indeed not, especially as the RFL are primary lease holders and not us.

I assume that legally, any sale would have to recognise the leaseholders and would have to stick to any current agreements about rent with their tenants?

The council own the land.

The RFL lease it from the council

The Bulls sub-lease it from the RFL

If the land ownership changes hands, this doesn't affect the leases. Just means RFL pay rent to the new owner.

The only way it would affect Bulls' position, is if the new owner was the Bulls. I'm not quite convinced we have sufficient spare millions doing nothing in the bank, and call me cynical, but I doubt there'd be a queue of keen potential lenders.

So would that mean that if Greene set up a company called 'Odsal' and bought the land from the council then Odsal would own the land, The RFL would lease the ground from 'Odsal' and we would lease it from the RFL. My point was that unless the Bulls buy the ground from the council we as a club are no better off. I think a lot of people assume that Green will buy the ground and the club will be in clover. That will only happen if we get rid of the groundsman.

And who on Earth is going to develop Odsal? All my life that's been talked about and still nowt has happened.
I still see you currently in a decent position to finish in the 4 as we have yet to play the top two as well as the 6th placed club.
All is not lost, but I hope it is.

What do you mean, "unless"? Do you seriously believe that there is any chance whatsoever of the Hulls, i.e. the club, having or raising the finance to buy the freehold?

And if the club by some miracle did, then sure they would be saving on no more rent - and getting rent from the RFL, which I admit would be amusing - but they would have to service the loan on the borrowed purchase price as well as the other payments that fall on an owner's shoulders.

Am I missing a trick here?

As I understand it, even if the club bought the freehold, the RFL's lease would remain intact, which logically means we couldn't use it, as its use would be covered by the RFL's lease? Surely the only way we could use the ground we only held the freehold on would be as tenants of the leaseholder? Unless we bought out the leaseholder, of course.

Nope, you're not missing anything. Except, that it seems obvious to me that any potential buyer of the freehold would have had secret talks to find out the score from the RFL, before deciding whether to go ahead and try to buy the freehold. Maybe even done a provisional deal, for all we know. For example, to re-assign their lease back to the Bulls. However, a sum of money was paid to the Bulls by the RFL to purchase the lease. You'd presume they'd want that back.

All parties would also need to explain how the RFL's ownership of the Lease, "for the very long term benefit of the club and the wider game" was no longer required, and why the "predators" that were circling wouldn't now return.

One thing seems clear - you wouldn't look to make a purchase like that without a plan, and without knowing the tenant would fit in with your plan.

Can't see any point in either Hull team wanting to buy Odsal.

I think "The Bradford Hulls" has quite a nice ring to it.....

Didn't the Hetheringtons already buy them once, or am I getting confused with Sheffhuddersfaxhead??

The confusion is apt. She was co-owner of Gateshead Thunder. Shenanigans of some description happened, and she then occupied the chair at Hull.

Shenanigans? SHENANIGANSS? You'll be saying next that there were Shenanigans when Sheffield had to give all their money to Huddersfield, but everyone knows that the RFL only help out the Bulls.