Jump to content

Bulliac

Coach
  • Posts

    1,232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Member Profile

  • Location
    Bradbados

Recent Profile Visitors

3,138 profile views

Bulliac's Achievements

293

Reputation

  1. I think the basic rule is WE follow the Aussies, not the other way round. Which suggests it won't happen.
  2. I think Swinton wouldn't be far off either, wasn't it 1866? The Bradford club, formed to play "football, under Rugby school rules" in 1863 was the same Bradford Football Club which has a continuous line through to the current Bulls. Allowing for various changes in owners, grounds etc along the way, of course. The 1907 hiatus, when Bradford Park Avenue soccer club was formed, was a split; the rugby club carried on with most of the same players, kit and equipment, from one season to the next at a new ground and to say it was a new club isn't really true - even though a fairly recent owner pulled the stunt of selling a '100 year anniversary' shirt in 2007. The other Bradford club was Manningham, the first Northern Union champions, who went on to become Bradford City in 1903 and this club has no connection at all to Bradford FC (other than coming from the same city), but it is probably the other Bradford club you are thinking of. As far as I know the Manningham rugby club completely disappeared when it changed to soccer.
  3. Being away from the centre may actually increase gates. My recollection from our visit to Bootham Crescent was that parking was a nightmare, as was our coach journey to the ground, I honestly don't know how our driver got round some of those narrow bends on the way in and out . Ancient narrow streets and a 'touristy' centre don't really make ideal partners for a sports ground.
  4. Sounds a very reasonable hypothesis. Looking at the re-build on TV I can't work out just what is planned - is the intention to have a two layer South stand with a seating element to it? It will certainly be a fine ground when completed.
  5. Isn't their major sponsor a building firm? I'm assuming Caddick are still involved in Leeds rugby.
  6. To be fair, there have been many rumours and to judge the quality of some of those rumours you only have to remember that the one you quoted was probably one of the more believable. That said, it was never truly very likely and any real development at the ground is most likely to be commercially based - it is, after all, a huge site with a capability of being used for many things as well as a fair sized rugby ground. Sadly, with money being tight and the economy trundling along the bottom and, in the near future at least, only likely to get worse, it seems unlikely to happen soon.
  7. The Odsal 'Superdome' remains alive as a figment of my imagination, lurking somewhere in the deeper, more rarely accessed, recesses of my brain. Maybe next year will be our year..?
  8. Ryan has been CEO since Omar took the club on, so should by now be up to speed with how it all works and I can't see any real difference to how the club moves forward. It seems, reading through the lines of Robbie's statement in the T&A, that his move to CEO was on the cards when he came back from Hudds which, if it is indeed the case, means this isn't a sudden move but something which has been planned for a few months, at least. Incidentally, it is only OK who is citing ill health, Gerry Sutcliffe already has fulltime job as an MP so, in reality, was never going to be a full time chairman as well. Same goes for Vipin Joshi, who I guess works within the Omar Khan group. Whatever happens in the future, I think Omar and Gerry desrve rich thanks from all at the Bulls for what they did, as at the time there really was no-one else.
  9. They have paid their taxes, they would be in court otherwise.
  10. I think you need to remember that Omar Khan has had no experience of running a rugby club and and is only just coming to the end of his first year - so he hasn't been putting £1 million "a year" into the club. This hasn't been helped by being on less than half of the TV money the other clubs are on. His biggest mistake was probably in assuming that all the old season ticket holders would renew without taking into account the cheap prices previously on offer and hopefully, after a full years' experience, he will have a bit more awareness for future seasons.
  11. I think the squad is looking more balanced for next year with decent cover in most areas, maybe just another prop needed, but we certainly shouldn't be needing backrowers in the halves next season.
  12. The article is incorrect, though I guess it's an easy mistake to make. The RFL have never claimed to have the freehold and the journo concerned really should check his facts.
  13. As things stand, Bfd Met are the owners, the RFL are the primary leaseholders and the Bulls have a secondary lease from the RFL. I think you may be being confused with what happened in 2000, with the "Odsal settlement", which came up after the 'superdome' project fell through and the Bulls returned fom Valley Parade. Up to that time the Bulls had a lease under which the council were responsible for maintenance and also took bar profits and anything made from ground advertising and any other uses like speedway for example were all extra money for the council. The new lease [the current primary lease now held by the RFL] after the 'settlement' was for 150 years. Under that lease the club took over maintenance [for which they were given a large sum, and I'm talking a few £millions, in compensation for the remainder of the old lease, under which it was the council's responsibility ] and also got the bars, advertising and the rental for other uses [sublets] and had to pay a small rent to the council. Though the money intended for upkeep is long gone [spent buying success in the noughties] all the other conditions of the lease remain under the secondary lease from the RFL. As primary lease holders I assume the RFL pay the small rent to Bfd Met. I don't think there ever was any question of the council selling the freehold, I think the problem with the ground was with what might happen if someone were to come in and buy out the club in order to grab the 150 year lease on the ground [or 'construction site' as it may well have very quickly become]. The club has been in some kind of financial difficulty ever since the 'settlement' money ran out in the mid noughties - hence the selling and downscaling that went on at the time, so it's a long way from being a far fetched notion, and much as I know absolutely nothing in particular, it would seem that those in charge at the time were worried enough to convince the RFL to buy the lease, so it sounds a little like there were strong rumours floating around.
  14. Not sure what you're on about to be honest mate. Bradford haven't had any 'lead balloon' of maintenance removed, so i don't know where you've got that from. Up to the 'Odsal settlement' in 2000, responsibility for upkeep lay with the freeholder, which is Bfd Met, and from that point on [the year 2000] all maintenance has been the sole responsibility of the club. When the club sold the primary lease [not the ground] to the RFL this did not change. What changed was that the club now pays rent at "commercial rates" to the RFL. The RFL presumably now pay the cheap rent to the council. I can't remember what the Bulls' rent is, though I'm sure I've seen the figure and it's not cheap. Certainly steep enough for Omar Khan to offer to buy back the primary lease last year. I think it should be remembered that the money the club got from the RFL late last season was just their own Sky money, all be it paid a little early.
  15. No, it was never really explained. I do find it hard to believe that OK came up with the suggestion though; why on earth would he if the idea hadn't been 'planted' by others at the meeting? It would have given the impression that Omar was - in effect - bribing the other clubs to let them play in SL, especially so when they pocketted the money themselves. Surely OK wouldn't have suggested it, nor would the other clubs have taken it for that reason alone - nor, surely, would the RFL legal people have okayed the deal given the way it would look. To be honest, the only way which looks reasonable, would be if the RFL presented it as a 'fine' and the 'price' for going into admin and OK and Gerry Sutcliffe had no real choice but to accept it if they wanted to stay in SL.
×
×
  • Create New...