Everyone is going on about how much the bulls owe. What income is likely if someone takes over? Have we had all our Super League money upfront?. I take it season tickets are now voided if a new company is created, raised turnstile prices?. What other income is likely, new sponsors? Sell players? another pledge?
We can be bold enough to make a stand and do battle for our views and beliefs. But we must strive to be mature enough not to resort to unnecessary personal attacks upon people with opposing views.
National Planning Policy is now in favour of 'sustainable development'. Ignoring the laughable abuse of that term, if there was some business venture that stacked up financially the odds on it getting planning at Odsal would be high, almost certain on appeal.
True except to develop a site it still needs the owners approval, which in this case is the council, so they would not be blocking any development as a council, but as owners.
It was just a thought given that allegedly Caisley was after renegotiating the Bulls lease, after the Bulls got £1.2m off the RFL, which the RFL took the Stadium lease for repayment. Then people are saying the lease is worthless without the Bulls. I was not so sure. Warehousing could be a good call, you could get a lot of warehousing on the site and lots of volume.
Especially given it's prime location to the motorway.
The thing is, there is no income to speak of, there is no sponsor within a 7 day camel ride, and there would be no point, at all, in even thinking about starting newco if your business model was begging money off the fans every month!
If season tickets were dishonoured then thousands would not pay so gate income (even ignoring the inevitable departure of the best players) would be way down.
You'd have to fill it in to build anything on it. Not sure how easy/difficult that would be. The land next to it has already been sold too IIRC (the land behind the main stand). The land behind the Coral Stand needs decontaminating too.
Your current season tickets may not be honoured due to admin i know AG did it when he didnt have to. Its a fan alienator but there would be no obligation if a new owner comes in.
Thanks for answering Mick, just too busy this pm to even look at the site. And, with tongue in cheek, a pledge is the other, too obvious, one. These have to be seriously looked at to ensure the newco/whatever long term viability, any business trading successfully would not have to do hang on to tax,
1)that those who took up the tickets this year and last actively renew at the new increased figure (and what figure do you initially suggest as not being significantly price elastic)
2) that after this apocalyptic mess, fans still hold vast faith in the club
3) that new fans would be attracted to subsidise revenues even further
4) that we are doing the right things as a club to swap the armchair sports fan to an active sports fan. Sky is as much as our demon as our saviour given we are unable to convert most fans from home chair to stadium chair; and that as a sport is our greatest challenge.
Our biggest contention as a sport should be the abominable SKY broadcast deal the RFL 'negotiated' with Eddie Stobart. It is possible to live with an armchair fan philosophy only if the club divided monies from said headline deal some way significantly mitigate the major loss in spectator numbers. That is what we should have addressed as a collective and not being grateful for seeing a random picture of Jon Wilkin on a 18 wheel wagon going past Coventry.
agree, but a big long list of ifs that added together. Price elasticity definitely a key point that records should provide an answer to. 3 will cost money to achieve, so where most ingenuity is needed. 4) definitely a sup with the devil point: likewise how many turn up for a televised challenge cup game.
so, we have discussed the obvious, what about the not so obvious GB, any thoughts?
there seems to be a strong concensus that this administration will be a good thing,, however,, the SL licence was awarded, either on 'dodgy' info provided by the bulls or incompetent investigation by the auditors (kpmg?) , either way this is deeply embarressing for the governing body, and the one thing you don't do is get the 'suits' backs up. Secondly, the lease was bought from the bulls by the RFL, not from the council, Bradford council claimed to know nothing about it until it was signed, surely this means that the RFL are preferred creditors?, as i understand this there was a robust debate amongst the other member clubs as to the sense of buying something of value only whilst the club was in existence, will the members of the RFL, ie the member clubs allow them to write off 1.25 million quid? As is always the case in these situations, it is the smaller players who suffer, the fans and small business who ignored the warnings are facing the loss of money they are owed and possibly the loss of the club. I'm not gloating or trying score points but seriously, this could seriously blow up in the face of the board who have quite obviously engineered this situation.
“At last, a real, Tory budget,” Daily Mail 24/9/22 "It may be that the honourable gentleman doesn't like mixing with his own side … but we on this side have a more convivial, fraternal spirit." Jacob Rees-Mogg 21/10/21
A member of the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati.