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.
Not really sure why they can't just go back to the same simple expedient which was part of the Odsal settlement in 2000. This, the fact that if the club don't play a large majority of games at the ground, a large sum is payable to the council, is still current until 2019, I believe.
If a similar condition, for a similar or even longer period, were to be included in any deal with the new owners, it would still allow developments, either commercial or rugby related to take place on the ground but would effectively stymie any deal which forced the team away from Odsal. It may also be sufficient for the RFL to sell back the primary lease, hopefully reducing the rent to be paid. I would have been happy with a Tesco near the ground with the superdome scheme so why be unhappy about commercial activity by the owners? I accept that it isn't a cast iron guarantee but how may property developers are going to wait 25 or 30 years to get the fruits of their investment?
Main caveat for myself is just who is involved in ABC. I have been assuming the council and RFL do, but do they?
