OK, Having read what we were told, this is how I read it:

The current board at Odsal are not majority or even significant shareholders in Bradford Bulls Holdings LTD. Infact 93% of shares are held by individuals not involved in the day to day management of the club.

The Bulls current board were concerned that sopmebody could buy up shares quite quickly, in order to secure a big chunk of real estate in a decent position near the main access route into the city. The club would be homeless, and RL, the club and the city would suffer.

Now that the club dont own the lease, if somebody buys up the shares, and takes over, they dont gain control of Odsal as a peice of property, they get more liabilities, as the club is still maintaining it!!!

That in effect means that any takeover would be for rugby reasons rather than making a profit from developing the land minus a rugby ground, andf therefore it is massively less likely to happen.

If I am cynical (or hopeful) the "six figure sum" received by the club, linked to the rent now being payed means that effectively, the club will maintain the ground until the economy nationally takes an upturn. then the RFL will improve the facility and have it as a national stadium for RL. I imagine that the money recieved will be repayed several times over by Bradford Bulls over the years, and that the RFL will end up making a tidy sumk from it, which in turn could be used for the betterment of the sport.

Right! so the BoD only represent 7% of the shares and are concerned that other shareholders may sell and a developer snaps them up and the lease with it?
They couldn't then sell Odsal or develop it for other purposes as it is only leased surely.
If the Bulls wanted to, they are safe at Odsal for another 149 years, unless BCC wanted them out and money for the land of course.
So its pretty much down to how much the council want the Bulls more than anything else??
I can see some angle, but its not really how its been sold to the RL public, although it certainly makes more sense than anything else i have heard.

Just an aside, but with this £1M, they are going to have to pay higher rental and upkeep on the ground, and to stop this all happening in the future, buy up a large number of shares?

Peter Hood is the chairman?

Do his significant amount of shares not count?

Peter Hood owns significantly more than 7% of the shares??

A lease that long is tantamount to freehold, as you know. Hood implied at the forum that there were no constraints in the lease to prevent development - although I always assumed there must be some constraint. The clu b DOES have a liability, running off un

And I have been saying what Isaac1 summarised for a week now! I tried to not labour the point (until last night, anyway) of the other shareholders potentially selling out because several of them are getting on a bit and they (or successors...) might find they have a good use for any windfall money a predator might offer them, and one at least is now quite old and frail. It seemed a tad too personal and unfair to suich past servants of the club to suggest that something that may currently be far from in their minds (who knows?) might change - basically because of them getting old or worse.

The club DOES have a liability - running off to 2019 - to repay monies to the council if the club does not play at least 90% of its home games at Odsal.

Peter Hood is the chairman.

Peter Hood owns around 7% of the shares.

Chris Caisley (former chairman, and critic of the current baord as well as players' agent for the Burgesses and others) is the largest single shareholder, at around 26%.

From memory, Colin Tordoff (Club President but not a director) is next largest, at under 20%. I recall Jack Bates and Roland Agar (retired directors) hold somewhere in the teens too, and Steven Coulby (another retired director) somewhat less.

Complete speculation here (and not noticed if the point has been made) but could it be anything to do with Steve Parkins apparent interest last year?

A lease that long is only in effect freehold, the problem lies in the ability to change the lands use, and obtaining planning for it, baring in mind at some point it may all have to be pulled down.

The figure of £1m is speculative. Hood would neither confirm nor deny any figure last night, in response to my question:

"It has been reported that the Bulls received a ”seven figure sum” for assigning the long lease to the RFL. Assuming that two of those seven figures are not the pence...has this all been paid or will it be paid in stages?"

The Bulls paid a pepeprcorn to the council as the RFL now will. As has been said, for all practical purposes in our lifetimes, the Bulls held a freeehold. the Bulls now have to pay what we are told is a commercial rent to the RFL.

Hood stated categorically last night that Bulls pay the upkeep. Doubtless this will reflect in the rent, as it would in any other "short" lease.

Maybe at some stage the club will be in a position to buy back the shares of the retired etc directors, for some value. This action by the RFL takes any pressure off for doing that. Had the deal not been done, I doubt the Bulls could have considered that option. This action implicitly takes away most, if not all, of the value in those shares anyway, so maybe any future buyback will be at a far far more modest cost than might have been necessary.

Adeybull

Ive just sent you a pm.

RFL Bulls

Yes.

On a selfish note then, looks like we could have dodged a bullet.

This talk of a new home for Rugby League



Why pick Bradford?

I think if I were planning on setting up a new home for rugby league I would pick a ground that sets an example of what the RFL want as a franchise criteria benchmark e.g. Warrington, St Helens etc not a crumbly, weather exposed, no atmosphere, poor views etc stadium.

Yes you have. Many thanks.

In breaking news, taken from the latest Annual Return just filed, it looks like - pretty recently - Peter Hood increased his holding to c. 20%, and fellow director Andrew bennett took on c. 5%. I suspect mainly from Colin Tordoff, but will have to get hold of the full list and check at home first. Caisley remains the biggest single shareholder.

Cheers for the pointer. I'd been waiting for the latest AR to become available, once I'd seen it filed a few days ago, and been too busy to go check.

One very significant implication of the above, that gives me some cheer: the board can now, collectively, block a Special Resolution. As can Caisley by himself. Still an unstable situiation going forward, but at least Caisley is not the most powerful faction any more.

It was quite apparent last night that the RFL have no immediate plans to improve the facilities at Odsal. The stadium (and the surrounding area) has a lot of potential for redevelopment. Whether or not the RFL are interested in doing anything with the land is up to them.

Peter Hood mentioned the possibility of improving things once the recession was over.

In my opinion? And from what I have heard from sources totally unrelated to the Bulls? Most definitely!!!

He drew particular attention to the use of the word "immediate", and emphasised that "immediate" can mean different things depending on the circumstances. It does seem clear everyone is seeking to dampen expectations, in the current ecomnomic climate. He went on to say that, once the climate improves, all the "stakeholders" (Bulls, RFL, Council) will sit down and discuss how to take the site forward, probbaly involving the private sector. For the benefit of all the stakeholders - Bulls, RFL, City.

In discussions with Duckett and (separately) Hood last week, it was clear to me that no-one expects the RFL just to sit on the site and do nothing. Very far from it.

And how would you set about paying for it? Even if the club involved chose to sell?

Odsal cost them nothing in real terms - they paid out a sum up-front and get that back in future rentals, and that sum wi9ll have been a very small fraction of what just buying the land would cost, let alone a whole stadium.

The two stadia you mentioned have capacities - as it stands - much less than Odsal.

Odsal is a huge site with full scope for development - phased or otherwise. Why try and buy a middling-sized stadium off an existing club, when you can build your own to your own specification, in your own time?

The RFL could easily move its HQ to Odsal, and add the development and other facilities that it lacks at Red Hall.

Odsal is very central to the RL heartland. You could not say that about Saints, Wire, Wigan, Hull FC.

Odsal is literally on the motorway and probably even more so once some development and link roads are built. Stadia like the Galpharm and Headingly are not.

Like it or not, Odsal IS one of the historic, iconic stadia for the game.

Trying to be dispassionate there, but are any of those reasons good enough for you?

They are all good reasons.
Im just bitter the RFL are inconsistent with who they help/bail out.
In my opinion they should have an open, fair and impartial system.

Belle View IS one of the historic, iconic stadia for the game (1895) Odsal (1934)

This in our experience does not count for anything.

Iconic for sure. At least as much as Odsal. More so than Keighley, and the RFL took over the head lease on THEIR ground (so its not just Odsal). But you chairman sold Belle Vue though, so the option to "do a Keighley" was seemingly not open to the RFL? And you could hardly say it was right on the motorway and was a huge site with lots of room for development, if you were looking anyway at them to "do an Odsal"?

I still maintain...the odsal situation was unique, hence the unique solution. Would I have acknowledged that had I not been a Bulls supporter? im really don't know. I guess if I was as bitter with the way things had turned out as I was over Leeds and Harrisgate, then objective consideration would have been nigh-on impossible.

Nah. But he DID talk a bit about people who refuse to admit anyone else with a differing POV may actually have a point, and instead resort to derision because - deep down - they would prefer not to hear.

I bet he didn't.

In the final analysis, the Bulls and the RFL know that this bail-out is completely unfair and has handed an advantage to one member club that hasn't been afforded to the others. They know that because it's blatantly and categorically the case, so in an attempt to mitigate the criticism and negative publicity it would garner, they've issued a series of insultingly vague and possibly dishonest press releases.

Your constant repetition of the spin doesn't make it any more plausible I'm afraid, though I do admire your stamina; I'd probably do the same for my club although given the strength of feeling, I'd probably avoid gloating about it in my message board sig.

[despair modeOf course he didn't... [/despair mode

The sig is not gloating; its rueful. From being (supposedly) masters of our own destiny when we returned to Odsal, to being a mere tenant of the RFL now and likely the butt of jokes (and worse) about that for the foreseeable future. Just another manifestation of how far we have fallen. It'll not be there for long; its bad enough knowing what it seems we had to do, without having to read it every day. I do, honestly, think the RFL will be seen to have done pretty well out of this when the history books come to be written.

thought I'd change my avavtar and sig. Just for you guys on here! Enjoy the new season and kee p up the banter! It's what makes our sport great!