Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:35 am  

pie.warrior wrote:

quite simple really, the lease is sold to them with a specific condition that the ground has to remain a fit venue to host rugby at a super league level for a certain lebgth of time ( say at least 10 years or more..??). Failure to comply with it and the lease reverts back to Bradford Council. So they can develope it how they wish as long as Rugby league at top level can still be played there. If they can't agree to this then they obviously want Odsal for some other purpose than playing Rugby

Except the RFL buying the lease out stating that Odsal is an Iconic RL stadium and nothing else so they have backed themselves into a corner and probably a mess here.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:37 am  

Blotto wrote:

Someone e mailed this to me

Its 16/1 the field ... and there off!

Its Caisley taking an early lead with ABC coming up on the inside
rails... Bradford Council jumping up and down,with No Money making up
the rear. They're now taking the canal road turn and the next fence is
the 'Wastefield' ditch ... oh and Caisley is a faller ... ABC now in the
lead, but some stray Bulls in the field next to the racecourse causing
concern to both runners and riders ... Eric Pickles is still near the
back, but remember he's carrying a few stone overweight and unlikely to
make the chase. They're now going through broadway and the bookies are
having a field day with Retail Competition having unseated his rider and
Charity Shops taking over the lead. Its looking like No Jobs is going to
stay the course though and Benefit Lad is looking good. Guilfoyle is
into the final furlong now, but it seems the rest of the field can't
quite see through the fog at the moment and its not clear if all the
field are heading for the same winning post.

Its neck and neck but the winner is Guilfoyle, who had nothing to lose
and picks up a big winners cheque."

Had a good laugh at this until I realised it was a factual statement

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:41 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

Didn't the T and A state the deal was dependent on the RFL selling the lease back to ABC/Bulls? The council would have to agree to this transfer and would insist that as a condition of the original settlement that the Bulls would play there. I can see the sense of the council allowing the Bulls out of the lease but can't see any way they would allow a situation where the Bulls went to VP and Akbars stayed at Odsal. Whoever agreed to that would spend the rest of their life in front of the audit comittee.

Spot on IMO. The council could not let a situation happen where Akbars or whoever ended up in sole control of Odsal without it being primarily a Rugby Stadium. Forget the audit committee they would no doubt end up in court under some form of competition rules.

If the lease were to be transferred back to the club it would be on the proviso that it was a Rugby Stadium otherwise the lease would become null and void allowing the Council to find the most advantageous bidder for the land.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:03 am  

don't have a problem with developers having the lease as long as it's developed with a top class rugby league stadium as part of the developement if it forms part of the rescue plan.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:41 am  

BM wrote:

Spot on IMO. The council could not let a situation happen ...

The Council HAS let the situation happen. The Council is an expert at letting situations happen. Our hole in the ground is but a part of the scandal of its shameful portfolio of holes in the ground, though it is the longest running.

You seem to somehow forget the Council's prime responsibility for why we are ultimately here. For many decades, the Council has spurned chance after chance after chance to develop Odsal into a stadium for the 21st century, and they have scandalously and miserably failed time after time.

Yes the short term blame for the insolvency of course lies with the recent boards, but if we had had a competent Council then we would already have had a superb stadium in which to play, an asset to us, the other users, and the city, instead of a massive drain on resources, and very likely we would never have got into this scenario.

BM wrote:

If the lease were to be transferred back to the club it would be on the proviso that it was a Rugby Stadium otherwise the lease would become null and void allowing the Council to find the most advantageous bidder for the land.

The administrator can transfer the lease (ie the Bulls' underlease) to whoever he wants. The terms that are in it are the terms that are in it. People are getting confused with the head lease (Council / RFL) and the underlease. It is the head lease that we hear ABC want back, from the RFL. Again, what provisos and conditions are in it are those that are in it, the Council could not change them.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:48 am  

Theboyem wrote:

Sky sports news ticker: sources reporting that consortiums bid in danger of collaspe as they've not given RFL assurances about plans for odsal.

The soap opera keeps on rolling - so next week is our latest 'last game'
Suppose I'm glad that in Potter's terms 'the fat lady hasn't sung yet', but really feel like we're

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:50 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The Council HAS let the situation happen. The Council is an expert at letting situations happen. Our hole in the ground is but a part of the scandal of its shameful portfolio of holes in the ground, though it is the longest running.

You seem to somehow forget the Council's prime responsibility for why we are ultimately here. For many decades, the Council has spurned chance after chance after chance to develop Odsal into a stadium for the 21st century, and they have scandalously and miserably failed time after time.

Yes the short term blame for the insolvency of course lies with the recent boards, but if we had had a competent Council then we would already have had a superb stadium in which to play, an asset to us, the other users, and the city, instead of a massive drain on resources, and very likely we would never have got into this scenario.

The administrator can transfer the lease (ie the Bulls' underlease) to whoever he wants. The terms that are in it are the terms that are in it. People are getting confused with the head lease (Council / RFL) and the underlease. It is the head lease that we hear ABC want back, from the RFL. Again, what provisos and conditions are in it are those that are in it, the Council could not change them.

seems clear that the head lease allows development/ground improvements i.e. we added coral stand under that lease. wonder if underlease only allows use of the ground but not improvement?. If ABC want to make physical modifications to coral stand to make it more useful on non-game days (improving/extending kitchen facilities springs to mind) or want to add a new building (restaurant where old clubhouse is) then that would explain why their getting head lease back is a integral part of any deal, although it doesnt explain their not just clarifying that to the RFL.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:02 am  

mat wrote:

seems clear that the head lease allows development/ground improvements i.e. we added coral stand under that lease. wonder if underlease only allows use of the ground but not improvement?. If ABC want to make physical modifications to coral stand to make it more useful on non-game days (improving/extending kitchen facilities springs to mind) or want to add a new building (restaurant where old clubhouse is) then that would explain why their getting head lease back is a integral part of any deal, although it doesnt explain their not just clarifying that to the RFL.

obviously there must be something in their plans for Odsal that they know the RFL wouldn't accept, so they can't give the clarification needed

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:15 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The Council HAS let the situation happen. The Council is an expert at letting situations happen. Our hole in the ground is but a part of the scandal of its shameful portfolio of holes in the ground, though it is the longest running.

You seem to somehow forget the Council's prime responsibility for why we are ultimately here. For many decades, the Council has spurned chance after chance after chance to develop Odsal into a stadium for the 21st century, and they have scandalously and miserably failed time after time.

Yes the short term blame for the insolvency of course lies with the recent boards, but if we had had a competent Council then we would already have had a superb stadium in which to play, an asset to us, the other users, and the city, instead of a massive drain on resources, and very likely we would never have got into this scenario.

The administrator can transfer the lease (ie the Bulls' underlease) to whoever he wants. The terms that are in it are the terms that are in it. People are getting confused with the head lease (Council / RFL) and the underlease. It is the head lease that we hear ABC want back, from the RFL. Again, what provisos and conditions are in it are those that are in it, the Council could not change them.

Bradford has been blessed with a spectacularly inept and visionless council for decades, but to suggest it is their responsibility to provide a state of the art stadium for a professional sports club is going a bit far. The only redevelopment plan which stood a realistic chance of coming to fruition was torpedoed by the then government. Yes the council as ultimate owners can certainly help facilitate developement but they have no duty to fund it.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:49 am  

pie.warrior wrote: obviously there must be something in their plans for Odsal that they know the RFL wouldn't accept, so they can't give the clarification needed That definitely has a ring of truthiness to it.

pie.warrior wrote: obviously there must be something in their plans for Odsal that they know the RFL wouldn't accept, so they can't give the clarification needed That definitely has a ring of truthiness to it.