As I don't have the time to pick apart the rest of your comment, I have highlighted the stupidest part.



I don't think the RFL are destroying the game, as I said before I understand their objectives but their methods are poor. The fact that the RFL would have happily handed the Crusaders a 3 year SL franchise ahead of Wakefield (and lets not pretend it would have been any other way) highlights how short sighted they are. The Crusaders were doomed to fail, when everyone said they were doomed (us 'flatcappers'

) we got loads of stick from people like you.



Special dispensation has been handed out to many clubs in the past, and whilst I understand the reasoning behind these decisions I do not agree with the principle, if you think the RFL are fair and transparent in their dealings (like letting the Crusaders into SL in the first place) then fair enough Smokey. As for the RFL being competent as an organisation, that is another story altogether!

Anyway, back to the thread.

Now we've all had chance to "compare notes", Bailout or Investment ?

Seems to depend on whether you are a bitter Wakey fan, unable to get their head round the fact that their chairman sold THEIR stadium to developers, so it was lost to the club and the game, whereas ours sold OURS to the RFL.

Neither.



A piece of real estate has been sold. RFL happen to have bought it. No one would give a flying one if a venture capital firm, the local council or a rich individual had bought it.



And if they have the money, who cares who the buyer is, so long as everyone's all right?

Adey, whilst you have admirably endeavoured to explain the situation regarding the purchase of the lease, you are now reverting to comparisons that are irrelevant.



I don’t care the RFL has bought Bradford’s lease, I don’t care how much they’ve paid for it. Nor do I care why they’ve done it.



However, with regards to future licence’s, would you not agree that Bradford are now gold plated with the RFL as their masters?

No.



And the RFL are not our masters; just our landlord.



As you will probably hear from the terraces this year:



"Richard Lewis, he's OK...

he's OK, he's OK;

Richard Lewis, he's OK...

he's our landlord."



I would say that it would be highly embarrassing for the RFL if Odsal was to fail the stadium criteria; but it is highly unlikely that those criteria would have been set so that Bulls would not get a licence just because of the stadium anyway! Don' forget that Bulls were NOT one of the clubs warned about their stadium in the previous round, and they were not put on any particular warning this time. The stadium is stated as being in need of some improvement, but we start from already having over 6,000 seats and a large covered stand as well as extensive modern corporate facilities and large on-site car parks and other boxes ticked. Nothing said we were at serious risk on the stadium for next time round. Maybe the time AFTER that, I'll grant you. But a club with a B-grade licence (as we have) is should be OK next time round, all other things being equal anyway.



People seem to forget that there are loads of other criteria that are applied. If Bulls get the crowds, develop the players and perform OK on the park, (and don't go bust...) there is NO WAY they'd lose their licence, any more than any of the other SL clubs. If the Bulls fail at the first two and the last (they have conspicuously failed at the third in recent years) then they become very very vulnerable - and rightly so.



In such a situation, the worst case scenario is that the RFL surrender the long lease back to the council and maybe take a hit on the amount of the original payment that they have not recovered through rentals. But remember, the RFL have a charge on the Bulls' assets, which includes e.g. the (removable) Coral Stand, so you would expect that in any insolvency they could recover a fair bit even of that.



The way I see it, the RFL are taking an element of commercial risk that the Bulls may eventually not be in a position to pay the rent, in exchange for picking up a huge site with (despite what the naysayers would believe) very considerable future potential for the RFL.

This does create the potential for a conflict of interests on the RFLs part when licence applications are considered. There's no denying that.

Potential, for sure. The actual - I think more could be done by the RFL to clarify for people why this will not actually be the case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you. There are many criteria for licensing applications and the Bulls were, what, a B last time? I doubt they'd be in danger of not getting a licence any time soon.



It's the RFLs problem, not the Bulls, and it's the RFLs potential conflict, not the Bulls.



Besides, the grounds for licencing decisions are pretty clear so anyone with half a brain can determine and interpret the decisions and reach their own conclusions.



But I am sure the conspiracy theorists will use the potential conflict to cite favouritism.

Correct, they wouldn't, but since what actually happened was that the governing body a) bought it and b) issued a spin-tastic press statement in an attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, people do give a flying one, and rightly so.



There is an undoubted and irrefutable conflict of interest going forward in terms of licence decisions; to deny such is stupid. There is also yet more damage done to the trust and confidence of RL fans in the RFL; to deny that is stupid. Finally, I would imagine there are a number of SL Chairmen who are incensed by this decision, and that will damage the RFL's ability to administer the game going forward.



It's a mess, a self-inflicted and easily avoidable one, but a mess nonetheless.

The conflict of interest is wider than simply in relation to whether the ground will be treated less harshly at license application time than other stadiums.



The RFL as landlord receive rent from Bradford and have an interest in continuing to receive that income, so it is not in the RFL's interest for Bradford's income to go down (as a result of a failure to win a license, for example). Will the RFL step in to bail them out should Bradford get in financial difficulties?



The RFL also have an interest in enhancing the value of their asset, which means that Bradford may benefit directly from investment by the RFL whereas the rest of the league will at best benefit indirectly through the increased asset value. We may well see for example the RFL doing a deal with Bradford to upgrade Odsal in return for a higher rental or a share of revenue.



Not a good situation for the game as a whole, good though it may be for Bradford in isolation.

Yes we can - Crusaders, Wakey, Cas, Widnes....