There are so many ways bradford could be a very successful semi pro club playing out of odsal

There are so many ways bradford could be a very successful PRO club playing out of odsal. Alas incompetence put paid to that.

Be interesting to see khans next move. For those who haven't seen, he's changed his twitter summary to "saved bradfordbulls" - well at least he thinks they're fine ... Right?

They're a pointless club now, always to be in the shadow of Leeds,just let Leeds & Huddersfield canabalise the market and grow there businesses.

Even Keighley could benefit from it

The RFL have an asset that even with out the RL club has a value.

Land always has a value to someone. Also the clandestine nature of this deal seems to be very poor. Nearly everyone knows about it.

Also there seemed to be some mixing up about SL clubs needing to know what the RFL is doing financially. This is not the case. If the RFL decided to step in to save London at some point in the future, it's got little to do with SL. The only question is once saved whether SL allow them to compete.

I'd imagine the Huddersfield Chairman will be all for keeping Bradford in SL despite the FBI CIA and NSA all helping them out clandestinely.

Thats why the council will ask for a lot of money if their tenants (the RFL) want to do anything with their land which isn't covenanted (rugby league).

The vote to split the Bulls TV money was 8:5. Wigan, Warrington & Leeds were 3 of the 5 who voted against.

The deal was clandestine with Council members only being informed after it had gone through.

Most sport governing bodies do not see themselves as having a property development / land buying role. Particularly making purchases that benefit some clubs and not others.

If the RFL exec want to support their preferred clubs it has a lot 'to do' with other SL clubs. The rules have been set to give the RFL executive a high degree of freedom. Several clubs take the view that Nigel and his gang have abused this freedom and this is why some SL clubs want better checks and balances atm.

Your going to make me split your post up again aren't you?



And? If my company looked to make an acquisition, I doubt I would be consulted, it's not my job. Again, the rfl doesn't need to ask everyone in the world before doing anything - there are people on other threads trying to get the rfl to give LESS control to the clubs and not let them have a say in a great deal more things like the sponsorship deal.



This is wrong. This is so painfully wrong. Every governing body in the world will have long term financial goals and investment strategies, from forex markets to property to commodities. Land is a good investment at the moment, prices are bubbling, so if a buyer comes in to save Bradford, the lease can be sold back at a profit, and long term, land (and in particular British land) has become a store of value, replacing gold. The rfl having an investment strategy should be applauded - even if it has been brought about by club stupidity - I would hope there's someone at the rfl, monitoring the positions of lots of teams who own grounds (particularly lower league football, as well as rugby league clubs) in case similar situations occur.



Again with the unsupported call of favouritism ... Really? You know Nigel wood is a Halifax fan right? That would hardly make bradford a favoured club! Clubs want better checks and balances because some clubs like to take the stupid route, and it damages everyone in the sport - I don't think you'd find any link to any club owner screaming wood out (posters on here maybe)

The other way of looking at it is the RFL, as governing body, took advantage of a distressed member club to acquire an asset at a reduced price. Legally fine, but ethically fine?

That's a whole other debate! Was the price ever actually released? I think what makes me not question it was the fact that everything I have read suggests Bradford made the initial approach, so there's no real way anyone can argue any sort of vulture tactics, at least imo - this is the problem with arguing when no one has the full details.

With or without bradford existing as a club, odsal would be a prudent purchase (so long as it was agreed with Bradford council what would happen to the land if Bradford ceased to exist)

Ethically - is it any worse than tescos buying Central Park?

I've posted the alternative view, on another thread recently. Hold on.

So what we seemed to have learned is that Bradford got a ‘sweetheart deal’ that cut 50% of their tv income, but also undervalued their asset when the RFL bought the lease in a unique deal that they have also done for some lower league clubs.

This deal was done in a clandestine fashion that the clubs weren’t aware of, and has forced the clubs to ask for more checks an balances on the RFL powers, so after the abuse of powers in buying these leases which sit on the RFL’s balance sheets and was secretly released in RFL reports and clandestine official statements to the media The SL Clubs have responded by demanding more power in marketing and commercial operations. Because that will of course stop the RFL buying leases from its member clubs, without its member clubs knowing. and voting for it. and agreeing as a collective to run said clubs together if necessary, though they aren’t aware of this.

Interesting…………

"FearTheVee wroteicon_biggrin.gifo you really believe that transaction wasn't principally about getting cash into the Bulls?"


Yes. That transaction was to redeem the secret £700k unsecured loan which the RFL had foolishly advanced Bradford 4months previously.

The RFL then bricked themselves when they realised the exposure & needed some good "spin" on it when it leaked so offered to buy the Odsal lease(as the council still own the freehold).

They then wrote off the loan and took the only asset of value Bradford had.
6 months later the administrator offered creditors SFA. I've always wondered why he didn't look at the RFL deal which effectively made them preferred creditors to the detriment of the taxpayers & everyone else.

Bottom line, the RFL £700k intervention got Bradford into that season and no more. Then all the rubbish about "competition integrity" kicked in.
Bradford lost their main asset.
Bradford built up another 8months of debt, thereby ensuring administration
Bradford went to the fans, and used up all that goodwill.

If the RFL had said no, Bradford would have entered administration in the preseason. With less debt, still holding an asset (so more attractive to investors - maybe a better quality of investor), and still able call on the fans goodwill.

That RFL intervention screwed us completely. Our directors must have made a compelling case. I don't know who to blame more for it. The directors who sold it to the RFL, or the RFL who bought it....

The RFL could sell the tenancy to Saints, we could then recoup the rent from Bradford or who ever. The RFL in a way are the lender of last resort. It's not really about 'favorite' clubs, it's about a certain number of clubs having to use that lender of last resort.

I'm sure if Salford had not found a Koukash, then they too would have been needing a lender of last resort. As it was Salford were lucky that Koukash just happened to live on their doorstep and could not get in at his home town club.

Bradford I think do suffer being next to Leeds. They are both big cities, but in terms of money and wealth, I think Leeds attract this in greater quantities in all area's of life. Living where I do, it is very noticable that traffic flows tend to be into Leeds in the morning and out of it at night. Bradford I think over time will become more of a commuting area for the power house of Leeds. That will only be reflected in the money available to things like sporting clubs.

Hudderfield have great pockets in their backer, but I am sure if the situation was reversed and they where in Bradford shoes, then the RFL would step in to help. As it is their money man covers this gap, if he ever chooses to stop then we will see if Huddersfield are treated any differently.

But I've not seen a club in difficulty where they have accused the RFL of not offering assistance where possible.

The buying of the lease for me is a non-issue. My bigger concern was the initial loan. That was not secured against anything, it was only when collapse was imminent that the correct action was taken to get something solid in return for the loan.

If the RFL did that again, I would be concerned. If they get an asset or some guarantee of a return then I have no problem with them lending millions. If they lend with only a hope of a return then I would be concerned.

So if it was Saints needing a lender of last resort. I would expect them to want some share in something tangible, (like a percentage of our stadia or the right to host internationals free of charge till the debt is repaid etc.)

Also of note was the offer from SuperLeague (Europe), with the RFL's blessing, to buy Bradford from the administrator 18months ago.

Ultimately the administrator thought OK offered creditors a better deal.....

Oh dear you do appear confused.

1. The RFL is a governing body with a membership not a private company that chooses not to consult staff on an acquisition.

2. there is a difference between 'asking everyone in the world' and consulting the governing council when an executive is making a decision that benefits some members while putting others at a disadvantage.

3. I wrote "Most sport governing bodies do not see themselves as having a property development / land buying role. Particularly making purchases that benefit some clubs and not others." Do share with us the sports Governing bodies that buy land for general development AND in particular name perhaps 2 or 3 governing bodies that have bought land that improves the competitiveness of one senior club over others - I must have missed this happening.

4. I said preferred not favouritism. It would also appear that for you it is only possible to prefer that club supported through life, not so. And I am pretty sure I have seen a member of the Wood family in a Bulls shirt if such things do matter to you. Bulls have had a far better deal than many SL clubs from the RFL. I do not think that is the RFLs role.

5.I doubt that many owners will be screaming Wood out. There may come a day when some owners seek to call a halt to the behaviour of the executive.....oh wait a minute!

dont forget odsal is an iconic stadium which had to be saved

Ah. The RFL cover story rears its head again.

Edited for accuracy.

So you see it as prefered, some bradford fans see it as screwing them over for a cheap bid on the lease, taking the TV monies and making them unattractive to new investors.

If this was a referee's performance then I'd say he must have got it right as both sides seem to think they got a rough end of the deal.

If your not pleasing anyone you must have been impartial.

Well that’s not the line we were fed when the proverbial hit the fan.

Whilst still bemused at the RFL loaning money to Bradford on the quiet, we were told the reason for the lease acquisition was to stop unscrupulous land grab companies getting their grubby hands on the Icon that is Odsal.

All this guff about the RFL having a smart investment strategy, or even taking advantage of a struggling club

.

The RFL just tried to save the day, no agenda, but as usual, not professionally savvy enough.

Withholding Tv monies was the idea of a "sugar daddy" chairman who wanted a disincentive for a club to walk away from debts.

His argument being that a less scrupulous sugar daddy could decide to not subsidise his club for a year, keep his money in his pocket, put the club into admin, wipe the debts clean and start again.

He keeps his money, the club has a reputational & competition hit but not a financial one , the only losers being the taxpayer & other creditors.

1. The RFL most definitely is a private company.
2. What governing council? Why should it be consulted? Which members were disadvantaged?
3. The NRL are a good example of assisting one club over others. But why do you insist the RFL be like other governing bodies when RL isn't the same as other sports?
4. You keep saying that Bradford have had a far better deal, what deal? How much does it add up to? How much did other clubs assistance add up to? Including the mergers over the years. If you don't answer we'll assume you don't know and are therefore simply guessing that Bradford have had a better deal. Which is fine, but does make it seem both hypocritical and like you simply don't like Bradford.
5. Hang on, you think the owners/CEO's of the clubs think the RFL has been too bold and radical in its effectiveness in recent times? I think you haven't got a clue why the owners/CEO's are upset with the RFL leadership.

Quote ="Cripesginger"Oh dear you do appear confused. 1. The RFL is a governing body with a membership not a private company that chooses not to consult staff on an acquisition. 2. there is a difference between 'asking everyone in the world' and consulting the governing council when an executive is making a decision that benefits some members while putting others at a disadvantage. 3. I wrote "Most sport governing bodies do not see themselves as having a property development / land buying role. Particularly making purchases that benefit some clubs and not others." Do share with us the sports Governing bodies that buy land for general development AND in particular name perhaps 2 or 3 governing bodies that have bought land that improves the competitiveness of one senior club over others - I must have missed this happening. 4. I said preferred not favouritism. It would also appear that for you it is only possible to prefer that club supported through life, not so. And I am pretty sure I have seen a member of the Wood family in a Bulls shirt if such things do matter to you. Bulls have had a far better deal than many SL clubs from the RFL. I do not think that is the RFLs role. 5.I doubt that many owners will be screaming Wood out. There may come a day when some owners seek to call a halt to the behaviour of the executive.....oh wait a minute!'" The rfl is a company ... The World Cup was a company ... Super league is also a company ... FIFA is a company, the rfu is a company ... The only "governing bodies" are in fact governments ... Do you not understand how it works? If you need further convincing start here: companycheck.co.uk/company/03845 ... house-docs The rfl is run like a business ...because it is a business... Also - having your ground bought isn't really to the benefit if the club ... In fact it's kind of a kiss of death ... Even if we do assume selling your ground gives you an advantage over other teams, as has been discussed, odsal isn't the only stadium to have its lease bought by the rfl - if it's the precedent that's set for teams in trouble then it's not like favourites has been played - your yet to argue any of my points about it being a prudent buy - talking of which: Quote ="Cripesginger" A Governing body playing favourites and presiding over repeated financial disasters does the game a disservice.'" Playing favourites isn't favouritism :s But since you insist, the obvious example is the fa buying wembley as a land redevelopment ... The current callings out has nothing to do with helping Bradford ... You know that right? More to do with power plays and politics ...

Quote ="Cripesginger"Oh dear you do appear confused. 1. The RFL is a governing body with a membership not a private company that chooses not to consult staff on an acquisition. 2. there is a difference between 'asking everyone in the world' and consulting the governing council when an executive is making a decision that benefits some members while putting others at a disadvantage. 3. I wrote "Most sport governing bodies do not see themselves as having a property development / land buying role. Particularly making purchases that benefit some clubs and not others." Do share with us the sports Governing bodies that buy land for general development AND in particular name perhaps 2 or 3 governing bodies that have bought land that improves the competitiveness of one senior club over others - I must have missed this happening. 4. I said preferred not favouritism. It would also appear that for you it is only possible to prefer that club supported through life, not so. And I am pretty sure I have seen a member of the Wood family in a Bulls shirt if such things do matter to you. Bulls have had a far better deal than many SL clubs from the RFL. I do not think that is the RFLs role. 5.I doubt that many owners will be screaming Wood out. There may come a day when some owners seek to call a halt to the behaviour of the executive.....oh wait a minute!'" The rfl is a company ... The World Cup was a company ... Super league is also a company ... FIFA is a company, the rfu is a company ... The only "governing bodies" are in fact governments ... Do you not understand how it works? If you need further convincing start here: companycheck.co.uk/company/03845 ... house-docs The rfl is run like a business ...because it is a business... Also - having your ground bought isn't really to the benefit if the club ... In fact it's kind of a kiss of death ... Even if we do assume selling your ground gives you an advantage over other teams, as has been discussed, odsal isn't the only stadium to have its lease bought by the rfl - if it's the precedent that's set for teams in trouble then it's not like favourites has been played - your yet to argue any of my points about it being a prudent buy - talking of which: Quote ="Cripesginger" A Governing body playing favourites and presiding over repeated financial disasters does the game a disservice.'" Playing favourites isn't favouritism :s But since you insist, the obvious example is the fa buying wembley as a land redevelopment ... The current callings out has nothing to do with helping Bradford ... You know that right? More to do with power plays and politics ...

It was an more of an advance rather than a loan wasn’t it.

Pre-season Bradford short of cash and going to go bust, RFL extend advance of Sky money/loan Bradford some money with Sky money still to be paid, Sky money advance/loan doesn’t get club on right footing, have more going out than coming in and Bradford going to go bust mid-season, RFL agree with Bradford to cancel loan/advance and take Odsal lease as asset instead. Bradford have improved cash flow with not having loan/advance taken from income/being paid back RFL have asset on balance sheet. Bradford go bust anyway.

I don’t think the RFL opened themselves to any risk because had Bradford gone bust without paying back the advance, then the RFL would take that repayment from Bradfords unfulfilled SL contract. I think the risk they opened up was Bradford going bust mid-season and the clusterwhoopsie that would cause the competition.

I too would be fine with the RFL acting as lender to its member clubs. The problem will be that a decision needs to be taken on who gets to borrow what, and for what, and the repayment terms. And the chip on shoulder brigade of RL would have a field day complaining that Club A got a loan but Club B didn’t.

The RFL and SL having the same leadership will always create the impression of bias to some people because A) RL seems to attract a fair few people who are as dumb as they are paranoid, and B) because how can Nigel Wood fight for the interests of the semi-pro leagues and fight for the interests of SL if those two things are opposed? They aren’t always but there will be some instances where they are, and whether or not Nigel Wood can realistically wear those two hats, the image will always be there that there is bias one way or another.

We should completely change our governance, so that the RFL as an entity is the over-arching governing body for the international and grass-roots game, It handles disciplinary issues, the international game, the youth and amateur game and challenge cup in its entirety. An SL commission handles everything to do with SL it negotiates its TV rights, its marketing, all commercial aspects and revenue and the sharing thereof. There is a Championship commission which does the same for the Championships.

Where there is cross-over, on such issues as P+R, the structure of comps, international windows etc, there is an RL board with 3 RFL board members, 3 SL board members, 2 Championship Board members and a 70% vote needed to pass any resolutions.

As I said at the time, a much better way of preventing this would simply be to fail anybody who put the club in to administration, whether as shareholder or benefactor from investing in or being a board member of an RL club for a period of 10 years and make the list of those who would fail the ‘fit and proper persons test’ publicly available.