Re: Odsal Stadium the plot thickens : Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:18 pm
Highlander wrote:
With everything that has gone on, I can't understand why you still think that is accurate? That was the popular opinion at the time, but after 8 years, looking at the results, the opposite is correct. Unless when you used the word "benefit", you were using its other meaning - massive damage to the Bulls, the RFL and the game as a whole?
The RFL didn't buy the lease to help the Bulls, they did it to save themselves. The RFL gave the Bulls a large unsecured loan 3months previously and basically exchanged it for the only asset the Bulls had left.
Hood should never have asked for the loan. And the RFL should never have agreed to it. That decision tied Bradford & the RFL together, caused reputational damage, issues with governance, likely affected Sport England payout to the RFL as governance and avoiding conflict of interests are big for public bodies.
If the Bulls had gone into administration earlier, they would have had about £1.2m debt and a £1.5m asset. Much more saleable. Instead, they and the RFL had their devils compact and the bulls went bust one year later with no asset and about £2.4m debt.
The RFL didn't buy the lease to help the Bulls, they did it to save themselves. The RFL gave the Bulls a large unsecured loan 3months previously and basically exchanged it for the only asset the Bulls had left.
Hood should never have asked for the loan. And the RFL should never have agreed to it. That decision tied Bradford & the RFL together, caused reputational damage, issues with governance, likely affected Sport England payout to the RFL as governance and avoiding conflict of interests are big for public bodies.
If the Bulls had gone into administration earlier, they would have had about £1.2m debt and a £1.5m asset. Much more saleable. Instead, they and the RFL had their devils compact and the bulls went bust one year later with no asset and about £2.4m debt.
There is no bout that the loan of £700K was for Bradford's benefit or, was it forced upon them ?
As you say, there was little choice for the RFL to swap the debt on the loan for the lease, as Bradford had nothing else to offer.
Yes, this was a slightly toxic arrangement and as I said, it was detrimental in the long term compared to the "peppercorn" rent that an already insolvent business was paying.
However, where should we put the blame.
Was it a desperate governing body, not wanting to see a fallen star disappear or was it Bradford that convinced the RFL that the plan would work.
Either way, the RFL still look like a bunch of incompetents and Bradford, for all of their great years, are just done, which is terribly sad for the game and it appears that "we" are all going to pick up the tab with half of the load already having been written off.
Although a new build on the Richard Dunn site sounds great, it would appear that nobody is prepared to face the fact that there is no bloody money and whilst it seems that Bradford are desperate to avoid playing at Valley Parade, as an outsider looking in, this looks a way better option than playing out of Dewsbury or hoping for a miracle.
