: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:22 am  

Bullseye wrote:

Interesting take on events BM.

I can't see the Bulls going against the Council over Odsal plans. However what about the two parties coming to some arrangement that would see the Bulls moving to VP at some stage?

I think it's fast becoming the only possible long term home for the Bulls as I don't think any development of Odsal Stadium is likely to take place.

I'm not so sure, they may be able to come up with some compromise on the OSV to improve facilities and erect a Sports Centre - make no mistake they certainly want to but as ALL parties accept improving Odsal stadium is not a cheap option for anybody.

There may be a shiny new stadium down the road open to sharing soon ..... I believe Caisley said that the possible incumbent club wouldn't have been able to "afford to open the gates" of the original Tesco scheme.

Would be ironic if you ended up sharing their stadium If Bob Blackburn isn't talking complete tosh of course ...

[Bullseye]

: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:38 am  

The plan mooted in the T&A about a stadium for BPA near Phoenix Park is even less likely to happen than OSV. Having had a look at the finances on Companies House I'd suggest he couldn't afford a coat of paint for the gates of the BPA stadium let alone anything else.

I think that the Bulls are going to end up at VP as it will be their only option. Bulls fans may have to make a choice as to whether they want to support the club at VP or not have a club at all. Having said all that a move there isn't an easy solution. The Bulls may have to pay back some money to get out of Odsal and that cost may be prohibitive, unless the council write it off so they can dump the Odsal millstone once and for all.

: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:04 am  

just out of interest has anyone added up what council has spent on reports and studies into odsal during lifetime of present scheme? Bet it would pay a decent chunk of final bill.

Imo promotion of scheme has been totally wrong. It's always described as a new stadium for the bulls, when all we actually get out of it is a stand on the popular side. rest of stadium remains the same. Its actually a repplacement sport Centre for the dilapidated richard dunn , which also has a stand for us and some changing rooms hanging off the back. If it had been promoted in this way imo we'd be a lot further on and would have avoided a lot of the critiscm with regard to council financing a private company. Also what a lot of the detractors are forgetting when they say we're expecting a handout is that we are providing the land for the project. The council may hold the freehold but we have an irrevocable 120 year lease. We could move to valley parade and retain odsal as a training ground for next 120 years and block council from re-developing the site if we were so inclined.

: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:28 am  

mat wrote:

Also what a lot of the detractors are forgetting when they say we're expecting a handout is that we are providing the land for the project. The council may hold the freehold but we have an irrevocable 120 year lease. We could move to valley parade and retain odsal as a training ground for next 120 years and block council from re-developing the site if we were so inclined.

That's stretching things a bit Mat.

1) You were given 4. something million pounds to take that land on, will that be handed back?
2) You couldn't just move to Valley Parade, because you would have to hand a large chunk of the 4. something million pounds back.

: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:28 am  

It's a large part of what the stadium needs to bring it in line with modern requirements.
Look at Headingley. It's an old ground too but improvements have been made in stages and there's not been any suggestion that they should move out - even though there's no parking and the local traffic situation on matchdays is terrible. Odsal ticks a few boxes that Headingley never will.

A re-developed pop side with bars, food outlets and toilets would take us a long way towards what we need. It means that people can come and watch a game on a wet day and stay dry. That's the bottom line.
We can't move on until we have at least that.

I don't think we're heading for VP. Not permanently anyway. I think the fact that the Bulls are involved in the project now and that it has some serious backing from other bodies within the city will ultimately get the sports centre, pop side roof and new carparking etc built.
If the Bulls were to stay well out of the whole process then I'd be worried but it does appear that we're a central part of the whole project.

[Bullseye]

: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:23 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

That's stretching things a bit Mat.

1) You were given 4. something million pounds to take that land on, will that be handed back?
2) You couldn't just move to Valley Parade, because you would have to hand a large chunk of the 4. something million pounds back.

It's my understanding that the settlement of the 1986 agreement meant that the Bulls were paid in a lump sum what they would have received up to 2014 (think that was the year but could be wrong). If the Bulls move out of Odsal before then they would have to pay the cash for the intervening years but not the whole sum that had been paid.

: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:04 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

That's stretching things a bit Mat.

1) You were given 4. something million pounds to take that land on, will that be handed back?
2) You couldn't just move to Valley Parade, because you would have to hand a large chunk of the 4. something million pounds back.

I know its stretching it a bit but I wanted to make point. I dont think its a course of action the bulls would seriously contemplate.
We are contributing to the scheme and have identified significant sources of extra funding to minimise contribution council would have to make and the end result is a new stand for us and a new modern sports Centre for south bradford owned and operated by the council. If the sports village falls through the council will still have to find money to replace richard dunn but doing it as a standalone project is bound to cost more.

: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:34 pm  

mat wrote:

We are contributing to the scheme and have identified significant sources of extra funding to minimise contribution council would have to make

The Bulls are contributing nothing at all financially to the scheme apart from concededing in the last plans that they would agree to decorate the areas of the OSV that fell into their exclusive use. In the grand scheme of things that can hardly be called a contribution.

Now I know that the council are not great but it was they who involved Bradford College and it is they who are paying the Project Manager from the college for his input ( for all the lack of progress made ).

and the end result is a new stand for us and a new modern sports Centre for south bradford owned and operated by the council. If the sports village falls through the council will still have to find money to replace richard dunn but doing it as a standalone project is bound to cost more.

How would building a standalone replacement for Richard Dunn's cost MORE than building a replacement for Richard Dunn's AND a new stand with associated facilities for the Bulls bearing in mind that at the last count the vast majority of monies identified were from council land or council capital receipts.

When the numbers were presented previously and the shortfall was in the region of £5m ( including a pool being built ) then it strikes me that the Council CAN afford a standalone Sports Centre is the associated facilities for the Bulls were not involved.

Make no mistake they want to deliver both but financially it is difficult

: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:00 pm  

BM wrote:

Make no mistake they want to deliver both but financially it is difficult

No it isn't its that Council's by nature are fiscally incompentent, BMDC being one of the worst in that aspect!

: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:01 pm  

BM wrote:

The Bulls are contributing nothing at all financially to the scheme apart from concededing in the last plans that they would agree to decorate the areas of the OSV that fell into their exclusive use. In the grand scheme of things that can hardly be called a contribution.

maybe not financially but we are contributing the use of the land, which whilst the council owns the freehold we are the leaseholders for the next 120 years which is a lot longer than the lifetime of the proposed buildings. Council can do nothing with odsal without our agreement as long as we stay within terms of lease.

council on other hand need the money from sale of richard dunn land to finance building of new sports Centre. If they dont sell richard dunn site they've got to find a large sum of money to build a sports Centre. By combining the two sites it works out cheaper.