debaser wrote:
So what was the logic behind this decision?
So the Bulls own nothing?
So the Bulls own nothing?
Were you not around at the time all this happened? (Serious question).
Don't really want to go over what happened yet again, to be honest, although I can see from elsewhere on this thread that some people are not telling it quite as it was. But I'll have stab, quickly and from recollection in simple terms. Mostly fact, but also an element of supposition on my part and maybe opinion, shall we say?
1. The club moved "temporarily" to VP while the new stadium and Tescos retail development were to be built.
2. However, there was suspiciously little progress on the Odsal development after we moved out, and a year later nothing had happened.
3. Various companies objected to the planning consent, primarily other retailers (including Morrisons, Asda and the Co-op (they who are no longer there...) ) which just happen to be competitors to Tesco, regardless of the reasons they gave in objection at the time. There was considerable discussion about Ken Morrison at the time, with some rather uncomplimentary adjectives being applied to him although it needs to be remembered that he was chair of a plc and therefore his primary responsibility was to his shareholders not his fellow Bradfordians (unfortunately).
4. Even though the Council gave planning consent, the scheme was "called in" for review by central government - because of the retail element being "out of town", primarily. Even though, of course, we already had large Morrisons and Asda supermarkets scattered round the ring road. It was suggested by some at the time that the scheme was always likely to be called in, and that people involved in the scheme knew, or ought to have known, that this would be so. I cannot comment further on that speculation of the time.
5. Because of this (allegedly) the developers pulled out, as did Tesco, and the scheme was scrapped. With Bulls stranded at VP. Oh joy.
6. At around this time, Bradford City were in the mire financially because of...well I'll leave it to City fans to explain that one and the activities of Mr Richmond.
7. There was speculation at the time was that Council would pay the Bulls about £5m to buy themselves out of the Odsal agreement, Bulls would pay this to City to buy in to VP as a junior partner, and the council would then redevelop the Odsal site for housing/industrial/whatever. By this means, the council would be laughing cos it had freed up a big chunk of strategically-situated land which it could presumably make a lot of money on developing AND it has got out of the Odsal agreement; City would be laughing cos the money from the council via the Bulls would have solved their financial problems; and the council would have effectively bailed out City, the ultimate recipient of what they paid without it looking at all like that. The then-Chief Exec of the council was supposedly a big soccer fan, although it is inconceivable that this could have had any bearing on actions taken. As I stress, this was the talk at the time. It was less clear just how the Bulls stood to gain from this hypothetical scenario, if at all...
8. Funnily enough, Tesco seemed to all the world hardly devastated at having to to pull out of the scheme. Curiously, shortly afterwards they were allowed to open up that big site on Great Horton Road, and were then given approval to significantly expand their site on Canal Road. Indeed, that latter site is now to be developed even further. Neither of those sites seemed to be regarded as presenting a problem to the city centre, even though both involve large non-food elements and it was the non-food element that was seen to be the problem with the site at Odsal. And funnily enough Morrisons were allowed to site a non-food Matalan next to their Mayo Avenue store shortly afterwards. The reader can draw whatever conclusions they want from those curious developments. The conspiracy theorists certainly did at the time, pointing to "reasons" why it would suit the council for the Bulls to stay at VP. I could not comment, obviously.
9. The talk at the time was also that the deal at VP was not at all advantageous to the Bulls, and that there were serious issues between the club and Richmond. Most of this was anecdotal, and in public the Bulls were always careful to thank City for their help.
10. The majority of both Bulls fans and away fans did not like VP. Numerous issues, some more understandable than others. Issues such as the perceived heavy-handed stewarding because they could not get their heads round it not being soccer crowds; the terrible queues to get a drink, cos they could not get their heads round the fact that you could drink at RL matches; the lack of space for any of the (as then was) extensive pre-match activities; the way the away fans were cooped up in that stand at the end and were segregated, the problems with car parking...and so on. It had also to be said that the corporate facilities were far superior, the views were usually better and the covered stands (less wet supporters too, at the back at least) made for more noise. The less-understandable reasons were that, e.g., it was too far to walk to. I guess ultimately it came down to "it wasn't ours and it wasn't home"
11. The club wanted back to Odsal, whatever some may now say. They held a public meeting (at Cedar Court) and made that very very clear. They actively encouraged the formation of a supporters' association to, inter alia, campaign for a return to Odsal. I can state categorically that the large majority of Bulls fans DID want to return to Odsal - I was one of those actively campaigning for that, and heard first hand what supporters wanted. Others who were involved in the "Try for Odsal" campaign and other separate campaigns will be able to testify to that.
12. In the end, the club cut the deal with the council to return to Odsal. To clarify what someone said earlier, which was not the whole story, the deal was that the council would still buy itself out of the "1986 Agreement", which committed the council to providing, manning and maintaining the stadium till 2019 AND to making an annual payment to the Bulls, in exchange for all the food and drink concessions etc. At the same time, the council granted the Bulls a very long lease for a peppercorn rent - to all intents an purposes freehold, except of course the club could not sell the site or change its use. Also, crucially, the agreement (quite reasonably) provided for the club to repay the Odsal Settlement pro-rata if we did not play 90% of our league games there till 2019, running-off on a sliding scale.
13. From the above, you can see how the Odsal Settlement was theoretically a good deal for the club - in theory we should have been no worse off than before, although (contrary to what some people would have you believe, no better off either) and back at our "home"; a decent deal for the council (again contrary to what some would have you believe) because they were freed of the obligation of the 2019 agreement AND for having to sort out the contamination etc issues with the site so THEY were no worse off than before and if anything marginally better off; and not good news for City, because they had to sort out the financial mess of their own (well, Richmond's) making themselves.
14. You can also see from the above why the Bulls cannot sell Odsal, or move out for years yet because we could not afford the repayment to the council. So we are basically locked-in there, unless something changes. Like the OSV.
15. Where did it go wrong? Basically, as far as I can determine, because after the incredible 2003 season the club budgeted for an increase in attendances of around 1000 or so. And instead we saw a reduction of similar amount. Result = significant loss of income. At the same time, apparently it transpired that the costs of running the stadium were going to be far higher than anticipated - maintenance and H&S work alone was frightening. Dunno what due diligence was done, but it doesn't look like it was that good. Of course, its easy to speculate about whether the council could get work done much cheaper than we could, or whether they attributed all the costs properly or whatever, but it seems we ended up with much higher costs than expected with significantly lower income than expected. And for a club that was technically insolvent before the move to VP (source: published accounts) and was not making trading profits despite the early SL success but was actually relying on loans from directors (since repaid), this was serious indeed.
16. Caisley railed at the fans for not turning up. Indeed, Bullseye and I spent a morning putting out a press release in response to his sharpest outburst. It becomes increasingly clear that his outbursts about the fans - counterproductive though they surely were - were probably driven by desperation about the deteriorating financial position following the return to Odsal.
17. Back to the original point: on the assumptions it seems the club made regarding costs and income, the Odsal Settlement agreement looked to make sense financially. Indeed, it must have done given the cacophony of abuse we got from City fans, Keighley fans and anyone else who felt we had cut a very good deal. Unfortunately, the club's assumptions seemed to have turned out to have been far too optimistic, and the deal seems to have proved to be nothing like as favourable as most people thought at the time. Indeed, it has become a millstone given the disastrous drop in crowds. It looks increasingly like the only winners - if anyone was - were the council, and Tesco. City fans did not deserve what happened to their club under Richmond's regime, and Bulls fans increasingly failing to turn up at Odsal speaks for itself.
That has taken nearly an hour, and has been rushed, and so is bound to be at best approximate and with errors, and likely to be open to attack, but its the best I can do to try and help explain why we are where we are now. Others please feel free to improve on this.
