So who else is in the RFL's property portfolio?



Fantastic news for us as a club. Safeguards our future. Certainly a good time as fans for it to be launched, it will be the number one topic on peoples lips tomorrow night at the season launch.

So it was sold at "market value" - which must be sod all with a sitting tenant paying a peppercorn rent over a very very long lease?



And we are supposed to now be paying a "market rent" - not a peppercorn one. One hopes there is not much effective difference, since the last thing we need is additional costs. Unless the RFL are assuming running costs?



That bit implying the RFL does this sort of thing all the time...yeah, right.



This raises all sorts of questions, and maybe helps answer a few (and addresses a few rumours) that have been circulating for a while now. I suspect there is rather more to all this than meets the eye - and I can make a few guesses - but that will hardly be rocket science, will it?



I wonder what else has been transacted, beyond the acquisition of the stadium...?



Guess I'd better start writing my questions for the forthcoming forum!

Can someone post the main bit of the news on here as the Bulls site doesn't work from my place of slavery

Just check the RFL press release out FA. The Bulls have just copied that.

I think they own the lease on Cougar Park, but not the property as such.

The salient bit is:



"...and, seizing the opportunity to have the 'Vark make a total ass (pun intended) of himself on the steps of the town hall, the RFL, the Council and the Bulls are delighted to confirm that the 'Vark was totally utterly and completely...wrong! They look forward to him providing entertainment to tourists visiting Centenary Square at his earliest opportunity"



I think that just about covers the essential points?

In all honesty I struggle to believe the highlighted bit.

Yeh seen it now. And of course I was right, not wrong.



As I assumed, it isn't what it seems. Adey knows more about this sort of stuff than i do, but it is already clear that the Council have not just sold Odsal to the RFL, but there has been some form of three way deal involving the Bulls.



One stated result is that we have seemingly now agreed to pay "market value rental to the RFL to play their home fixtures at Odsal".



Now however anyone might want to spin that, one thing is for sure and that is that the market value of renting Odsal Stadium ain't one peppercorn.



So, I am thinking if we have agreed to pay something approaching a market rent, wouldn't the corollary of that be that we have in turn been released from our millstone of maintaining the place?



Secondly, what about the covenants with the Council that meant we paid a penalty if we moved out within a certain period? That must have gone, and been replaced with a formal lease between us and the RFL?



How long is our new lease?



If we no longer have to pay for the cost of upkeep (shurely we wouldn't have agreed to up to a "market rent" AND agreed a full repairing stylee of lease?) does that mean we are now suddenly a tad more flush than we previously were?

I think there is probably a lot of code in the wording of the press release. But, if I read at least some of the code right, we are more secure now than we were before this happened. Quite possibly, very much more secure. That has to be very good news.

Does this mean that the Bulls are no longer "tied" to Odsal the same way they were when it was council owned? Does this mean the RFL are now responsible for maintaining Odsal?



Also, surely from a licencing perspective, the RFL can't penalise the Bulls on the stadium criteria when they own it?

Sorry but it just doesnt seem right somehow, don't get me wrong great I think for the Bulls but I can see a lot of pi**ed off other clubs and supporters.



Guess you will be guarenteed a franschise as well forever, not like the RFL could refuse on the ground issue now.



Well done to Bradford Board for brokering this I would say.