Do you have evidence to back up that claim?

Yes, but not that I'm going to share on here.

You end up in special measures when your income and expenditure don't fit. Dumping the money pit of Odsal is an attempt to fix that, but the RFL still say the numbers don't work.

It comes back to that phrase which Bulls and its fans have never accepted..."cut your cloth".

If Bulls don't go PT, they will go bust again.

If they stay as they are, in terms of the squad that they have and assuming there is some improvement, they will very likely make the play offs next season but, you are right. They dont appear to have the income to support their wage bill et and that can only end in tears.

Yeah, and I've got evidence of who really shot JFK, which celebrities are actually giant lizards and who's going to win the next 4 World Cups. But I'm not going to share that on here.

You use the phrase "cut your cloth" - that's exactly what the Bulls are looking to do by moving to Dewsbury. You even make that point. The Bulls are working on a hybrid system with a mixture of FT and PT players. The RFL said that the Bulls were financially able to run a reserve grade team a short while ago when other teams were denied that right. Strange that it seems that moving out of Odsal has caused the RFL to now question the finances at Bradford.

And that announcement that was released on Friday, just before the bank holiday weekend, it's a petty and spiteful act by the RFL - especially as the Bulls have recently announced their season tickets and the information put in the release seems calculated to damage those sales. There was no need to announce the Bulls as being in special measures on the back of the agreeing their move to Dewsbury.

Bulls were in special measures months back.

For as long as the average neutral refuses to acknowledge, or downplays the murky involvement of the RFL then you'll all be a potential victim of it down the line. No one asks any questions.

And by the way none of that means I don't acknowledge the sustained mistakes of the bulls. People seem to act as if the two things are mutually exclusive.

The RFL made mistakes with the shady deals to help the Bulls.

In the long run, they don't seem to have helped, but without them, Bulls would ceased to exist many moons ago.

With hindsight, the RFL should have kept out of it.

Yeah course you have



You don’t have to be “in the know” to work out that the current owners are over spending. The accounts show that.

But the point, as Him pointed out, is they aren't 'cutting their cloth'. All Chalmers wants to do is swap round the club's expenditure and spend less on the ground and more on players so there won't actually be any financial savings at all. Even then that's probably based on crowds increasing given the likely reduction in admission prices.

And there you have it. As I said earlier, if you want to believe the RFLs actions have been nothing but altruism towards the bulls then they'll have got away with it.

Not sure why you have made a selective quote. My point was that, in making shady deals to help the Bulls, they have undoubtedly made it worse.

One crucial result, is that other clubs (and clearly their fans), have little sympathy or trust for the Bulls.

Good will is gone.

Hey dboy, I don’t know what planet your on but if I recall the only thing the rfl did yo help Bradford was share all there sky monies out to other superleague clubs, now if that is helping the bulls out then I pitty anyone else in trouble

You must have a very selective memory then, what about the cash the R.F.L. chucked Bradford's way prior to meltdown
No 1?

You know the one, when they "loaned" the club a shed full of cash on the quiet, I know their (The R.F.L.s) actions appear to be the main catalyst for the Bulls demise, but this initial financial injection wasn't a cunning plan to ruin one of S.L.'s flagship clubs.

The RFL made a secret loan to Bulls to keep them from going pop.

When they couldn't pay it back, they pretended to "buy" the lease to stop "predatory speculators getting their hands on Odsal".

Now you can't afford the rent.

The secret deals, advancing central funds, the sham lease purchase, all done to save a basket case.

This is why Hudgell, Carter and Davy wanted SL clubs to buy the lease...they feared its value would be written off to further help the Bulls.

Oh right, you seem to know a lot, how much did they lend them exactly, and you said loaned do they obviously got it back with interest I would assume too

They didn't pay the loan back. That's why the RFL took control of the lease.

Except that if you read Chalmers' statement they could actually afford the rent, he wants to merely divert the money saved on the rent and maintenance of Odsal into spending on players!

Not quite written off but value reduced to around £400k a couple of years ago.



Reported in the T&A as £1.25million, although other sources range from £750k up to that amount. Whatever, a not insignificant sum and even if you counted the rent as loan repayments they've paid back, at best, only half the amount and more likely around 25%. So not a great return on investment for the RFL.

Two things the RFL reduced value of Odsal to 750k not 400k.

Also in tomorrow's League Paper RFL have to now find 500k a year to pay the rates on Odsal + the lost 72k. Maybe that's why they think it's a poor decision.

Ok you obviously know more than me so apologies all round sorry

That’s right apart from one point. The rent isn’t the issue. It’s the 500k a year in rates and maintenance costs.

The maintenance costs are increasing too as the ground is falling to bits.

The rfl obviously can’t afford to right off what they’ve invested so far in this mess and can’t afford to take on the responsibility of securing the site without a tennant.

It’s not really Chalmers problem though. Those decisions were made 10 years ago by people no longer linked to either organisation.

It’s also why they wouldn’t allow the basket case club to die it’s rightful death so that people could start again from the bottom in 2017.

The current position just shows what a mickey poor decision it was to, first of all, to loan the 700k in the first place and although there seemed little option other than to take on the lease when the old, old, Bulls failed.
Having said that, I just dont get how the Bulls will prosper at Dewsbury.
Moving away from their home City, albeit into a ground that they can rent relatively cheaply, will inevitably lead to loss of your fan base and unless there is some on field success and/ or a new facility found in Bradford, this could be a slow lingering death.
From the outside looking in, surely it would be better for all concerned to find either a new solution for returning to Odsal or some kind of share with your footballing neighbours ?
I can remember comments previously that Valley Parade had some issues but, surely, it would be better for Bradford to be playing in Bradford and not moving to the Wakefield district.
The 2-4 year timescale for a return looks hugely optimistic.
Just remember how long the council took to open the new shopping complex in the middle of your city and there would be more people driving that scheme than a new ground for your club.

Dewsbury is in Kirklees not Wakefield and a move to valley parade would cost 750k a year which defeats the point of moving.

I'm a tad confused?






Of the £500k, how much is the annual rates bill?

Rates are low 6 figures. As part of a lease though, generally there are expectations to keep the facility in a similar level of maintenance. Whether those expectations now contractually revert to the RFL- who knows?

If I understand the system correctly, business rates are the rateable value (£105k) multiplied by the poundage (49.3p in the pound) or about £52k. This will still need to be paid (presumably by the RFL) when Bradford leave as the rateable value is above £12k.

Maintenance will likely revert to the RFL BUT, Bradford will almost certainly be required to leave the property in a state that allows for wear and tear. Last time I was there it looked as though there was quite a lot of maintenance required that would be difficult to assign to simply W&T so the soon to be ex-tenants may find themselves lumbered with a fairly costly leaving present