: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:12 pm  

BullAdict wrote:

We know that the council will never commit money to the OSV

...... your point above would be very valid if it weren't for the fact that the VAST majority of monies promised to fund the OSV is proposed to come from Council capital receipts. You know the sale of Horsfall and Richard Dunn land and advanced cash in recognition of Dunn's losing money.

The Bulls by comparison have promised to furnish and decorate any areas that are built exclusively for their use.

It's an interesting comparison purely provided for balance.

: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:22 pm  

The Richard Dunn centre loses a lot of money as it stands. It's badly designed and doesn't really serve the purpose it was supposedly designed for.
The amount of land it takes up is huge and that land is very valuable, being in a reasonably good area and right at the top of the M606.

A new modern sports centre would save the council a lot of money and that has been taken into consideration as part of the plan.

: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:29 pm  

Idle Bull wrote:

Moving back to the topic, I believe there is some political will for OSV to happen. However, there are a number of very serious obstacles to overcome;

1. Horsfall Playing Fields - Must be sold against strong public will to do so
2. Funding Gaps - Still very real, though closing all the time thanks to the College's input and sporting grants
3. Build Costs - Are rocketing thanks to the current construction boom in the UK which is set to continue with 2012 Olympics etc. so fixing a budget is proving difficlult
4. Bradford City, Keighley Cougars, Bradford Park Avenue - It's tricky politically for the council to support one professional club over others - Hence the comments in my original post, the Council's Executive must at least appear to be looking at options for supporting both or all, even if they aren't seriously considering a groundhare. Mark Lawn is actively trying to buy back VP from the Gibb family who aren't playing ball, and is less interested in a groundshare than either the Bulls or the Council in truth.
5. Bradford Council - Seem to be the only public authority capable of turning silk purses into sows ears - They really haven't got a clue how to pull this thing off,

I agree to an extent BUT considering your very valid points in 1 & 4 how do you propose the Council address them ?

Make no mistake, I've said it before, if they could get it to work they would. They probably thought they had the monkey off their back with the £5m payout and handing responsibility to the Bulls but that worked well didn't it, £5m spent and now desperately seeking more money for the running of Odsal.

I suppose the Council could give the Bulls £45m, City £50m and proportionately less to BPA, Cougars, Eccleshill and Thackley.

Can you see Council Tax payers voting for that little lot ?

: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:52 pm  

Since time immemorial, all the Council have ever done about Odsal is use ratepayers' cash to line the very deep and well-tailored pockets of a long and distinguished line of consultants. Nothing ever came of any of them, it was all a monumental waste of cash, nothing ever will, nothing has changed.

We don't have anyone in the city with either the strategic vision, or with the head-knocking-together clout, to put together a "new Odsal".

With regard to the OSV, here we have references to a key date in March, only 3 months away, and yet here for the first time some bozo says, "Wait a minute, did you know, there's another pro club in Bradford. Shouldn't we maybe speak to them, and look into whether we could do something else?"

IF City were/are ever to have anything whatsoever to do with OSV discussions/alternatives, then why these past few long years have the Council not mentioned it to them? Are we really to believe that at 11.59 they have just realized that City and VP exist, and they and their fans are a factor?

Or why if remotely interested in some collaboration, have City not been in touch with the council?

Can it really be that our well-paid consultants either omitted, or were not briefed, to consider these wider issues?

I can sum up what has been achieved with all the wasted millions on the back of a fag packet:-

"The Bulls can go to VP, or go hang. The OSV is dead in the water."

[Pumpetypump]

: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:11 pm  

Asim wrote:

I think the fact that thousands of people have been going to watch sport there for over 100 years without the incessant whining seen when the Bulls fans had to go there for a couple of years is countenance enough.

Alas your standpoint isn't proving particularly balanced is it. You're still steadfast in the inaccurate opinion that Bulls fans didn't like VP purely because it was further away.

Say something positive about Bulls fans; call it a challenge to see whether you're just a City Agent Provocateur or not.

[Pumpetypump]

: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:30 pm  

BM wrote:

You miss the point.

City fans didn't have an issue with car parking, bouncy castles, stewarding ( officious - yes ) and the "local residents". You'll notice that I refer to them politely unlike many comments from Bulls fans at the time.

City fans have an affinity to their ground through history and events. The "local residents" opened up their doors to hundreds of City fans and looked after them after the fire as well as driving many fans to hospital but they were universally derided by Bulls fans.

Why would City fans need to counter "the points" - when most of the points were utter cr*p ?

In accepting that NOWHERE would have been good enough for the Bulls, because Odsal means too much to the fans, it is unfortunate that people deride the grievances of Bulls fans as being entirely groundless (so to speak).

The comments that were made about local residents (I'm not familiar with them) were made for what reason would you say? Mischief? Snobbery? I'm not making a point here I genuinely want to know.

: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:58 pm  

I don't understand the problem with moving either?

Teams move, for all kinds of reasons, teams move! Stadia is very important, tradition is very important, I stood on my father's shoulders (god rest his soul) behind the posts at Odsal every Sunday, every Winter in the 70's, I helped my grandfather (god rest his soul) over the wall at Valley Parade on 11th May 1985 - These things are all very important personally and collectively, and I would never want the memories of those two men or those poor souls who perished at VP forgotten, but we do their memory a disservice by not looking forward to the future they can't have, which is far more important for our own children and the long term viability of both clubs.

We must have a stadium fit for purpose in the 21st century without tens of millions of pounds it can't be Odsal, City don't even own VP - So maybe just maybe a new stadium to share is the way forward - Rule nothing out, rule everything in!!

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:35 am  

Shaggoth wrote:

Alas your standpoint isn't proving particularly balanced is it. You're still steadfast in the inaccurate opinion that Bulls fans didn't like VP purely because it was further away.

Not at all, as I have said people whined about anything (location, car parking, no bouncy castles/cheerleaders, stewards, seats, food and drink etc etc) and everything just to excuse the fact they couldn't be arsed supporting the team they claimed to support. None of these things stop people going to watch their team.

Shaggoth wrote:

Say something positive about Bulls fans; call it a challenge to see whether you're just a City Agent Provocateur or not.

A few of them are quite nice, one or two even have a sense of humour.

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:06 am  

Asim wrote:

Not at all, as I have said people whined about anything (location, car parking, no bouncy castles/cheerleaders, stewards, seats, food and drink etc etc) and everything just to excuse the fact they couldn't be arsed supporting the team they claimed to support. None of these things stop people going to watch their team.


A few of them are quite nice, one or two even have a sense of humour.

I disagree entirely. I went to every matchg at VP and complained about it so it DIDN'T stop me supporting my team. However, it was supposed to be a short term solution. Were we to move to VP lopng term then you expect to switch to a stadium with better overall facilities. And you would still have to get the RFL to allow us to play on a pitch that doesn't meet the miniumum requirements on a permanent basis.

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:31 am  

rugbyreddog wrote:

I disagree entirely. I went to every matchg at VP and complained about it so it DIDN'T stop me supporting my team. However, it was supposed to be a short term solution. Were we to move to VP lopng term then you expect to switch to a stadium with better overall facilities. And you would still have to get the RFL to allow us to play on a pitch that doesn't meet the miniumum requirements on a permanent basis.

Well, that's two of us.

I'm surprised that the complete unsuitability of the pitch hasn't been mentioned before either. Unless you move one end of the ground backwards 10-20 metres that is insoluble, and rules VP out in a breath.

But how does closing Odsal and moving to VP - even if that were possible, which it's not - solve the Richard Dunn problem? Anyone? Or do we just do away with Odsal, do away with RD, and leave a huge sporting/exercise black hole in south Bradford? (But get to build some more houses).