: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:40 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.

The problem is people who didn't and won't go though, not those who did

rugbyreddog wrote:

Were we to move to VP lopng term then you expect to switch to a stadium with better overall facilities.

Surely you aren't trying to claim Odsal has better facilities? Facility wise the only advantage I can see is the ability to stand.

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:52 am  

Sure Ken Morrison could spare some space in one of his supermarket carparks for a kick around.

Or centenary square, park at the heart etc could become a new sports stadidump

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:58 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But how does closing Odsal and moving to VP - even if that were possible, which it's not - solve the Richard Dunn problem? Anyone?

I'm pretty sure that the Council would have no problem funding a replacement Sports Centre by itself either through existing capital budgets or the realisation of some of Dunn's existing land.

If Dunn's is losing as much money as they say then it's a "no brainer" with no other "schemes" and "political problems" attached.

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).

Well South Bradford will be losing the swimming pool under current OSV proposals so what would that leave ?

Anyone would think that the athletics track, a non-league footy stadium, 4 x 11 a side pitches and a cricket pitch that are proposed to be built over by houses didn't already exist in South Bradford

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:21 pm  

BM, I think you make some good points. However, I believe the situation boils down to this:

• If Bulls were to move to VP permanently, they would not be viable as a top flight rugby league club.
• If Bulls stay at Odsal as it is, they will sooner or later not be viable as a top flight rugby league club.
• Bulls have no realistic means of developing the stadium without Council backing.
• It is in Bradford Council's interests to have the Bulls continue as a top flight rugby league club.

Do you disagree or take issue with any of the above statements? Should Bradford Council allow another of the city's sporting institutions go to the wall when we know that with the right facilities they can more than pay for themselves in the long run?

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:02 pm  

fundamental problem we have is we are only leaseholders of odsal so we cant borrow against value of land. This also makes it difficult to attract outside investment other than grants.
council would probably sign ground over to us but then we would become liable for cost of enviromental cleanup which is needed, which is probably a significant percentage of costs of OSV.

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:48 pm  

mat wrote:

fundamental problem we have is we are only leaseholders of odsal so we cant borrow against value of land. This also makes it difficult to attract outside investment other than grants.
council would probably sign ground over to us but then we would become liable for cost of enviromental cleanup which is needed, which is probably a significant percentage of costs of OSV.

Yes we can. It's a 150 year lease which was described at the time by Mr Caisley as "virtual ownership".
Getting into debt is probably not a great idea though - that way clubs have gone to the wall.

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:30 pm  

af wrote:

[*]It is in Bradford Council's interests to have the Bulls continue as a top flight rugby league club.[/list]

why?

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:32 pm  

AndreaB wrote:

Yes we can. It's a 150 year lease which was described at the time by Mr Caisley as "virtual ownership".

I don't think you can. I can't see how you can borrow against something you don't own. Where's the collateral?

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:17 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

why?

Same reason it would clean graffiti off the town hall. The benefits might not be immediately apparent in the ledger, but the alternative is to do nothing, sending out the signal that the council have given up on the city, so everyone else might as well too.

: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:55 pm  

[quote="aj cougar"]I don't think you can. I can't see how you can borrow against something you don't own. Where's the collateral?[/quote

Well my family has borrowed money against a lease on lan d which is a 99 yr lease, for farming reasons.