Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:35 am  

FearTheVee wrote:

To be fair, they are playing "a" race card. All the reports are about meeting with a group of asian Bradford businessmen, which is a bit odd. It's not like they would say they were meeting with a group of white British businessmen would they? What does that description add? They're a group of businessmen regardless.

In what way is a description of their ethnicity 'playing a card' considering he also says he 'doesn't a trust a word' and is 'suspicious'. Is Tasker a liar?

If, the 'suspicion' is that Guilfoyle is preffering certain bidders over others then I am reliably informed it is a suspicion shared by Martyn Sadler, Tony Hannan (40/20), Dave Craven and senior people within the RFL. I have a lot of time for Sadler and would feel he would not easily be fed BS by kiteflyers. It also shared by a number of long standing posters on this forum.

And yet, between them they have not got anyone to go on record and say 'I am ****** ***** and I want to buy the Bulls'. If there is a conspiracy, why can't the most important RL journalists in the land supported by the governing body bring it into the open rather than making sly digs on a blog about a bloke with a good track record in the game?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:54 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

If the RFL are happy to sell there long lease (from the Council) to ABC, then there would only be two parties, the council and ABC. These two parties would then be well within their right to do a surrender and renewal. This could see a new lease drafted with new terms that both parties agree upon. Landlords don't do this for free though of course, and should the user clause change for example I would expect Bradford Council asking for a fair sum to draft the new 99/999 year lease.

The main sticking point though seems to be that the RFL are not happy to sell the long lease back to ABC.

I personally can see three main reasons for the ABC wishing to buy the long lease back;

1. ABC wish to bring down ongoing running costs (market rent to RFL) and give the club an asset [why would RFL disagree]

2. ABC would like a surrender and renewal with the council on the long lease to make some minor amendments to user clause e.g. to operate a restaurant from the site etc.[why would RFL disagree]

3. ABC would like a surrender and renewal with the council on the long lease to completely change the user clause e.g. from a sporting stadium to a distribution centre etc.


On a side note if the RFL are intent that RL in Bradford continues out of Odsal why not have the following structure;

Bradford Council
}
RFL (new 999 year lease with any small amendments as per ABC's request)
}
ABC (99 year lease from RFL at peppercorn rent costing approx. £1.25m)

This way the RFL get there money back and will always have a say over what happens at Odsal plus ABC have their asset. However, if it is ABC's intention to do the 3rd senario above this obviously won't be an option.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:55 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

And yet, between them they have not got anyone to go on record and say 'I am ****** ***** and I want to buy the Bulls'. If there is a conspiracy, why can't the most important RL journalists in the land supported by the governing body bring it into the open rather than making sly digs on a blog about a bloke with a good track record in the game?

I absolutely agree with this

I'm getting tired of hearing these constant comments, rumours and suggestions - on Twitter, Facebook and this very forum - that there are various other people who are wanting to buy the Bulls and are being denied by some complex ploy involving Brendan Guilfoyle (and possibly Chris Caisley and/or Gary Tasker)

Let's have something out in the open and unequivocal. I'd love nothing more than to see these 'other people' making their intentions known, presumably followed by Guilfoyle being hauled off in chains to be dragged before his professional body. I mean, its not as if there isn't an easy way to do it - the media is greedy for stories about the Bulls at the moment.

Basically, its time for these 'other people' to put up or shut up

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:01 am  

I would say it's well past time. Their chance of being taken seriously has been and gone. If they existed and they had any fight about them they would have fought.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:02 am  

paulwalker71 wrote:

I absolutely agree with this

I'm getting tired of hearing these constant comments, rumours and suggestions - on Twitter, Facebook and this very forum - that there are various other people who are wanting to buy the Bulls and are being denied by some complex ploy involving Brendan Guilfoyle (and possibly Chris Caisley and/or Gary Tasker)

Let's have something out in the open and unequivocal. I'd love nothing more than to see these 'other people' making their intentions known, presumably followed by Guilfoyle being hauled off in chains to be dragged before his professional body. I mean, its not as if there isn't an easy way to do it - the media is greedy for stories about the Bulls at the moment.

Tbf, I think the Plymouth fans warned about something similar happening with them, difference being (I think) the alternative bidder(s) were known.

Basically, its time for these 'other people' to put up or shut up

Agree 100%.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:07 am  

FWIW, Elima reporting that they did get paid.

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:24 am  

RAB90 wrote:

If the RFL are happy to sell there long lease (from the Council) to ABC, then there would only be two parties, the council and ABC. These two parties would then be well within their right to do a surrender and renewal. This could see a new lease drafted with new terms that both parties agree upon. Landlords don't do this for free though of course, and should the user clause change for example I would expect Bradford Council asking for a fair sum to draft the new 99/999 year lease.

The main sticking point though seems to be that the RFL are not happy to sell the long lease back to ABC.

I personally can see three main reasons for the ABC wishing to buy the long lease back;

1. ABC wish to bring down ongoing running costs (market rent to RFL) and give the club an asset [why would RFL disagree]

2. ABC would like a surrender and renewal with the council on the long lease to make some minor amendments to user clause e.g. to operate a restaurant from the site etc.[why would RFL disagree]

3. ABC would like a surrender and renewal with the council on the long lease to completely change the user clause e.g. from a sporting stadium to a distribution centre etc.


On a side note if the RFL are intent that RL in Bradford continues out of Odsal why not have the following structure;

Bradford Council
}
RFL (new 999 year lease with any small amendments as per ABC's request)
}
ABC (99 year lease from RFL at peppercorn rent costing approx. £1.25m)

This way the RFL get there money back and will always have a say over what happens at Odsal plus ABC have their asset. However, if it is ABC's intention to do the 3rd senario above this obviously won't be an option.

If ABC really are looking at Option 3, presumably they would have to do the deal and take their chances that the Council would subsequently agree to the change? It wouldn't be possible for them to obtain approval from the Council before 27th July?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:45 am  

mat wrote:

If you read what guilfoyle actually says it mentions he's 'focused' on ABC bid in at least one report. He doesnt actually come out and say there are no other bids.

I have noticed that a few times. Something along the line of "This deal is the best for the city of bradford..."

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:19 pm  

Northernrelic wrote:

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.

Which would be why I suggested no such outrageous thing. Don't forget that in past times the arrangements between Northern and the Council were not the same as now. Previous plans for example included the Council potentially saving millions by getting out of their Richard Dunn white elephant. The plans were hardly for the Council to provide a stadium for the Bulls, both parties had legal rights and responsibilities, anything the Council did would have had to be legal, be of benefit to the Bradford ratepayers, not just the club. It is just that the interests of the Council, ratepayers and the club in very many major financial respects coincided. For the most recent example, OSV.

Northernrelic wrote:

The only redevelopment plan which stood a realistic chance of coming to fruition was torpedoed by the then government. ...

Without a doubt, the Tesco scheme which so nearly came off, but was scuppered, would have been a financial result for the district's ratepayers, of some magnitude.

However you are actually saying that the procession of grand designs regularly paraded by the Council through the T&A for decades stood no realistic chance. Any of them. If that is true, then why did they do it? WHY was the Council publishing these plans? Yes, obviously, they have no duty to build a ground for a private club, so you tell me? Or are you suggesting the Council had forgotten that they couldn't spend money like this, so all the schemes were commissioned and published as some sort of mistake? Or they knew there was "no realistic chance" yet squandered millions of ratepayers' money - for what?

Re: Latest state of play posts only : Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:12 pm  

anyone read the small clip on page 62 of the sun.......Fev / Fax / Bradford ....???????