Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:48 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The lease thing would be easy for the RFL to sort out, as we know the price (morally, the same as what they paid the Bulls for it). As it is, we are entirely reliant on RFL for the long term future of rugby at Odsal, because under the head lease, the playing of rugby is only safeguarded to May 2019. The question for the RFL is, what are the true intentions of the bidder, and could they do anything to prevent the bidder (for example) taking the mick in years to come and making a killing at rugby's expense.

It's not easy for the RFL. Whatever the circumstances when they took the lease, they said what they said, and they have effectively a duty now and a responsibility to the wider game, of which they are custodians, to stick to their word. If they sell the lease then it is obviously impossible for them to exercise any further control over what happens at Odsal

From a bidder's perspective, the money side is pretty simple; you don't need money, as if your proposal for what you want to do with the ground stacks up commercially, then you can get funding from the banks and financiers. The problems are that both the RFL as our landlord, and indeed the Council as head landlord and site owner, have to be seen to be looking after the fans and the club and rugby in Bradford, but those are plainly non-commercial obstacles to making money which would be seen as a hindrance and an obstacle by your average lender.

The council can safeguard there been a stadium at Odsal as they ultimately have say in what gets planning permission within the citys boundaries, any new development that doesn't have a stadium incorporated doesn't get planning (or this should be the case!)

Other commercial uses for the site in addition should be welcomed as it makes the whole thing viable,

However with back handers anything is possible, and imho backhanders have seen some awesome parts of the citys heritage lost, so you can't rely on honesty and integrity to safeguard the stadium.

So it boils down to whether the bidder is prepared to commit in writing to the same sort of safeguards as the RFL said they wanted to ensure, but which aren't in the lease. I want the Bulls to survive, but what would the fans say about the RFL if they let a bidder pull the wool, and ended up ending rugby at Odsal and making a killing? So i can't blame the RFL for being extremely cautious.

[Bulliac]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:49 am  

To widen that argument, given the news in the T&A today that the council is seeking to offload their theatres, it may well be that money is so tight they might look on a bid for the freehold of Odsal in a favourable light.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:52 am  

The council can safeguard there been a stadium at Odsal as they ultimately have say in what gets planning permission within the citys boundaries, any new development that doesn't have a stadium incorporated doesn't get planning (or this should be the case!)

Other commercial uses for the site in addition should be welcomed as it makes the whole thing viable,

However with back handers anything is possible, and imho backhanders have seen some awesome parts of the citys heritage lost, so you can't rely on honesty and integrity to safeguard the stadium.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:54 am  

So we are where we've been for three weeks, as I've mentioned on here a few times the same bidder, the same sticking point. This deal could have been done two weeks ago!

The bidder wants to put money into the Bulls, but also wants a route back to sustained commercial activity to allow them to build on and OFF the pitch and not simply have an asset they need to keep shovelling money into - even if we were SL and WC champs the prize money and sponsorship on offer doesn't cover the cost of running a successful RL club, that's why the successful clubs either own or have control of their stadiums and surrounding development opportunities.

So our route back to sustained commercial activity is leveraging odsal and developing it properly, so the Bulls can be revived initially and grown eventually.

For me the RFL need to offer the lease at the right commercial value to this or any other bidder and prove they're willing to discuss the sale properly and secure RL in Bradford at Odsal - if they don't we have no club.

Seriously big day, today

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:54 am  

Bulliac wrote:

To widen that argument, given the news in the T&A today that the council is seeking to offload their theatres, it may well be that money is so tight they might look on a bid for the freehold of Odsal in a favourable light.

Hence the possible interest of Roberts.

[Bullseye]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:55 am  

Given the cuts the Council is having to make they’ll want to get as much as possible out of any assets they have and I don’t blame them.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:56 am  

Anyone have a meeting time.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:04 am  

With only one bidder left, (Mr Pettit said after a process of due diligence other bidders had either pulled out or their offers were found not to be up to scratch) one must question the seriousness and quality of those bids.

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:07 am  

RickyF1 wrote:

Anyone have a meeting time.

12:00 is the absolute final cut off time for all documentation to reach the RFL.

It's really funny the administrator saying there is only one bidder. They are just trying to squeeze RFL into selling lease, amateurish and the RFL can see through all this nonsense.

Hence why one of the bidders has had to bypass the administrator and talk directly with the RFL.

[Bulliac]

Re: Administration 3 - now in technicolour : Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:07 am  

Frank Whitcombe wrote:

So we are where we've been for three weeks, as I've mentioned on here a few times the same bidder, the same sticking point. This deal could have been done two weeks ago!

The bidder wants to put money into the Bulls, but also wants a route back to sustained commercial activity to allow them to build on and OFF the pitch and not simply have an asset they need to keep shovelling money into - even if we were SL and WC champs the prize money and sponsorship on offer doesn't cover the cost of running a successful RL club, that's why the successful clubs either own or have control of their stadiums and surrounding development opportunities.

So our route back to sustained commercial activity is leveraging odsal and developing it properly, so the Bulls can be revived initially and grown eventually.

For me the RFL need to offer the lease at the right commercial value to this or any other bidder and prove they're willing to discuss the sale properly and secure RL in Bradford at Odsal - if they don't we have no club.

Seriously big day, today

I've already said a few times, my understanding is that the club is already taxed with the responsibility for repairs and for upgrading the stadium, so already has the right - in fact the duty, to upgrade as necessary. This is bound up in the old 'Odsal settlement' lease from 2000, and was carried forward into the secondary lease taken from the RFL by Mr Hood. With the club having this responsibility there is no need to be having big talks about the lease - as long as we play rugby there the club can do pretty much what it wants with the 'extra land'.

Again, as I pointed out previously - no one is going to care a jot in 100 years time when our lease is up.