I really lost faith in the rfl over Chase playing for England.Then they accept Stobarts instead of betfair,Gleesongate it just rolls on and on........

Lost faith in them many years ago TBH, just enjoy watching the action.

Not got a real problem with this, suppose it depends on teh Ts & Cs and what they would do for other clubs in a similar position. It does definitely throw up a lot of questions around franchising and vested interests. Still I would rather see this than watch a team go to the wall.

I suppose one 'gripe' I do have is that if the Bulls are in financial trouble, which is a valid thought and the RFL are assisting them by this action then surely they can't virtually give away season passes like they have last season. If they do are the RFL subsidising the fans to go and watch.

Good point, especially when they happily watch lower league clubs struggle and go under (Bramley). They did sweet FA to help us when we were close to going out of business, which is ridiculous considering they had just ben given millions by Sky and allowed the top clubs to carve it up for themselves (ironically, led by Chris Casely of Bradford)

you missed out the registering and deregistering of players on certain conditions i.e. the "flexing" of the rules for some

silly boy what about gateshead or does that not count if you are black and white

I know I started the ball rolling on this topic, and I would like to comment on it in depth, but what I have to say is speculative at the moment, which would compromise RLFans and the moderators, and possible lead to a ban.

Therefore, I will just say on the eve of another SL season the RFL have acted in a way to protect the competition, and not as they are saying, a simple case of it being a business arrangement.

I will pick you up on the Stobart Vs Betfair one.
How much would it cost to advertise on 300 mobile billboards for a full year?
Billboards that travel all over the country?
More than £100k?......Try adding at least one more Zero to that figure.

Then who offered the better deal again?
Yep that would be Stobarts.

Ooh the intrigue!

From a business point of view it's a perfectly reasonable but when part of the SL criteria involves the maintainence, up-keep and development of a clubs stadium it's a strange one...

i just feel the rfl should help every member club of the rfl. Instead they assist some clubs and well and truly shaft others like us

The Bulls fans themselves view it as a sale and lease back type of deal, to give them an injection of capital to get their house in order. Bit hard for me to get my head around, as the owners were the council, but the people talking about it seem to understand it/be sensible.

The prospect of the Image Rights test case (HMRC vs Leeds Rhinos) lingers in the background. Those are seperate from the EBT thing that Pearson cleared at Hull, so any clubs having to deal with both could be staring down the barrel.

Ditto - all this press of RFL buying Odsal, is pretty misleading, if the local council owns the site.
So, if Odsal is owned by the local council and Bradford simply paid rent to use the facilities etc - say like we do to HCC [size=85(no ... I won't even say it

), [/sizewhat danger was there to Bradford of 'predatory approaches'. Given that, whatever rights Bradford have/had on the ground, surely the RFL has just inherited the same. As in, if there was a danger the ground was to be sold etc, how can the RFL stop it - if Bradford couldn't? (no new agreement has been touted between RFL and the council)

What do the RFL get out of this? They've paid Bradford Bulls an 'undisclosed sum' to achieve what exactly? Buy out Bradford as been the named tennant @ Odsal, basically paying Bradford to hand over the lease to them. So Bradford then pay the RFL whatever £ agreement, who then pay the lease agreement rate to the council? Bradford appear to come out of this very well off. Whilst the RFL [size=85(unless they intend to act on the Wembley of the North)[/size don't really gain much, apart from handing over cash to Bradford to continue renting their ground as they did previous.

Is this right? Someone help me out ... [size=50 reluctant intake of breath, Barrista? [/size

As I understand it the approaches were more to do with approaches to the club for the club than to the council for the land, but that's not to say that ownership of the club would have been the intended consequence of taking over the club. The terms of the lease effectively restrict its use to that of rugby league stadium whilst the Bulls are resident, but if the club were subjected to a takeover and moved to another stadium then the land would be up for grabs. Its location makes it far more attractive for development than pretty much anywhere in the city centre.

Valley Parade would have been the obvious destination, but that is owned by the pension fund for Flamingo Land rather than Bradford City. And City are getting murdered by the rent they pay on it. And if I also understand this correctly, one of the approaches was made by an individual who wished to buy both City and the Bulls. When this was reported in the press it was made pretty clear that the Bulls didn't consider him as someone intending to act seriously in the Bulls' interests, and this is from a club that has practically begged on its knees for a sugar daddy.

I could be wrong about all of this, but it is what I have pieced together from recent news reports and other posters.



According to the Sun it's a seven figure sum.

The lease from the council basically says that the lease holder pays a very, very small rent. The RFL are now paying that. In return, Bradford are now paying "market rates" for sub-letting the ground from the RFL.

The situation with the council was that whilst we paid a very small rent we were responsible for operating costs, maintenance and any future development. It's not clear who's responsible for those costs now, or, given the single use of the site and the possibility of ongoing costs being incurred by the tenant, what the "market rates" for sub-letting it actually are.

I doubt we'll ever find out actual figures for those rates but there is fan's forum with the club next Wednesday where we hope to at least find out more about who is responsible for what.

Do not expect a "Wembley of the North". First mooted in the mid forties, and constantly on some kind of drawing board ever since, I think we can say that now, in 2012, it ain't going to happen. At all. Ever.

You're right to say that this is a great bit of business by the club though. The sale and lease back part of the arrangement happened a long time ago (80s IIRC) when the council agreed to saddle themselves with all costs. After the short move to Valley Parade about ten years ago the Bulls returned under new terms. That was the deal that resulted in the Bulls taking on costs which the council exchanged for a low rent and a lump sum. This deal has resulted in another lump sum but I suspect the ability to wring some cash out of the stadium is now fully expended.

i think this is a great move and gives the RFL an opportunity to have a home stadium, a base. Hopefully in time this will be our Twickenham, our Wembley, especially if the RFL have plans to redevelop the ground and surrounding area.

The issue re getting a super league license in the future is a non starter for me. If we were talking about a Wakefield, for example, then I could see the argument as they only just scraped in to this round of franchises. This is Bradford Bulls we're talking about, they were never in danger of losing their license and probably wont be in that position for a long long time.

It's not about developing Odsal - rather saving the Bulls, I think.

My inference from reading the last post on the previous page is that the Bulls were in the mire and thus vulnerable to a predatory buy-out.
The RFL has chucked them a rope with a cash injection, but this is effectively a loan, as their peppercorn rent/maintenance costs will be greater.

Peppercorn rental agreements have another advantage, it seems. Short-term at least.

Good news that the Bulls have been save from predators, though as we didn't know they were in need it maybe doesn't feel like it. That it has had to come from the RFL is sub-optimal, but needs must.

What one has to wonder (again), is whether that are strategically important clubs for whom the RFL will go the extra mile?
And is that a problem or merely doing what is best rather than what is strictly right?

Isn't the idea of sponsorship to finance an organization ? If reports are true Stobarts are getting the best out of this deal, can you imagine the Premier League/RFU or any other sport being satisfied with 300 mobile billboards that advertise Stobarts Super League?

Well, no, the EPL or RFU won't be happy with trucks driving around advertising a rival sport, naturally.

It seems from conversations had last night at the season opening that some future potential of the site was indeed in the RFLs mind. Adeybull is worth reading on the VT thread at the moment.



We weren't in the mire, not in the sense that they were on the verge of going out of business. It's true that the costs of the site are a burden, and that this has had a huge impact on the club since their return, far more than the Harris case did. It's the site itself that made us attractive to hostile takeover by people interested in the site. The terms of the lease say it's ours for as long as we a) want it and b) can pay. Both of those are true, with the latter becoming more true as the current regime have streamlined operating costs.

What is true is that the club could not fend off a hostile take over. All clubs without a sugar daddy are in the mire from that point of view, and probably some who do have one too. The only thoughts I have to clear and present danger though were that any approaches for the club would be by asset strippers who make the "for as long as we want it" bit null and void, at which point the site would be sold to any developers and it would realise it's market value as a "fit for any use" site rather than a "fit for any rugby league club that wants play in Bradford" use. The council would profit hugely (no bad thing in itself), as would any developer who had found a way to get the current tenants out.

By this act the club isn't going to be a pawn in a fight which they aren't even the object of. It's not a Bulls-centric issue, it's a land-centric one. It's certainly not a case of being by their own mismanagement on the verge of collapse or administration. Now the lease is owned by someone who isn't going to tear it up, and thus the Bulls remain as they were but no longer likely to become collateral damage.

The idea of any commercial deal is to extract value from it, ideally as much as possible. I think the Stobart deal is superb. I'm disappointed it's only 100 trucks to begin with (out of over 2000) but I still think it's a very positive step. And it's a damn sight better than striking up a deal with a company that wants your customers to their earnings into a fire at the end of every week.

Why will it concern those two organisations that trucks are driving around the country advertising Rugby League? Would you be happy if your club entered into a similar deal ie. no cash but the club's name emblazoned on several hundred trucks?

You asked, basically, if the EPL and the RFU would be satisfied with truck's driving around with "Stobarts superleague" on them, I merely responded that they wouldn't, particularly if they'd paid Stobarts to drive around with "Stobarts superleague" on their trucks.

I have no concern nor interest in the matter, really. Just picking up on your error made me feel better, although; you completely missed it.

So 5% of Stobart's fleet will be advertising the Super League sponsorship. I think that's rubbish tbh. The potential pulling power is massive, but frankly 5% of their fleet is pathetic, from our arm of the deal. IMO this offers more to Stobart's than advertising RL in this country. Stobart have a massive 'geek' following, and I can imagine this is more of a clever marketing ploy rather than any real benefit to RL in the country. I've no idea how much a new tarpaulin sheet costs for a trailer but I doubt it's anything like what Betfair was offering x 100 trucks. Another point is where will these trailers be based? As in, will they be local shunters? Domestic carriers or European transit wagons? Say for an example having the majority based in and around Yorkshire/Lancs wouldn't really expand the brand of the Super League.


** Also, having strong commercial links to two SL clubs now, the RFL haven't done themselves any favours to the ave RL fan recently (IMO), esp when you consider they control who competes in the top competition and who doesn't.

I think it's fair to say it's an experiment at this point. In principle it's a great idea, but how it actually pans out remains to be seen. It could be trucks carrying things from Rochdale to Oldham, they could be national, and they could be all over Europe. They might even stay in Europe yet, which would be next to useless for everyone. I did find this interesting though: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 729988.stm Quote "The title sponsorship in previous years was all-encompassing, in effect a lock-out of other brands. "This is the exact opposite. This has freed up inventory that is available which has a commercial value for other blue-chip brands to come in and support Super League. "You will see over the course of the next couple of months partnership packages supporting the Stobart sponsorship so that you will find that the sport as a whole is financially in the same position."'" ..which, if it pans out, means lots of advertising in exchange for naming rights plus equivalent revenue streams through other sources. That would be nice.

I think it's fair to say it's an experiment at this point. In principle it's a great idea, but how it actually pans out remains to be seen. It could be trucks carrying things from Rochdale to Oldham, they could be national, and they could be all over Europe. They might even stay in Europe yet, which would be next to useless for everyone. I did find this interesting though: news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 729988.stm Quote "The title sponsorship in previous years was all-encompassing, in effect a lock-out of other brands. "This is the exact opposite. This has freed up inventory that is available which has a commercial value for other blue-chip brands to come in and support Super League. "You will see over the course of the next couple of months partnership packages supporting the Stobart sponsorship so that you will find that the sport as a whole is financially in the same position."'" ..which, if it pans out, means lots of advertising in exchange for naming rights plus equivalent revenue streams through other sources. That would be nice.

So really, the next couple of months are the tester of how good this deal is with regards whether the RFL get any other blue chip companies on board.

I'm sure other people will have had the email today ascertaining interest in what I'm assuming would be a subscription app to have hi speed wi fi in grounds allowing you to watch instant replays, get news, bet on line and other stuff. It looked a brilliant and innovative idea to me, I hope it happens.