RFL HQ - Where should it be? (Merged threads)

[DoubleD]

Ok, not technically Leeds, but Wetherby. However, I think worthy for a discussion, given the options being looked at.

So Leeds United are looking to vacate and have Leeds Council permission and support to develop a new training ground near Elland Road. This will leave a fairly modern facility with training pitches, offices just off the A1 vacant with no apparent tenant - it could potentially be taken on at a discounted rate. The RFL could utilise this to host all their junior competitions, have the national team train there (without having to pay someone else) and also hire the facility out to others as and when required.

The main downside I could see is potentially the location, with it only being accessible by road

[fieldofclothofgold]

oyes but the owner of TA will probably have other ideas about the future of TA once Leeds United leave  and the rent that is being paid is quite high

[Tommygilf]

I definitely think it could be viable as an "operational" HQ. However, media and the rest would have to be in a more accessible location imo. 

[Adeybull]

16 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

I don't know the reasoning for decision to base themselves in Leeds, although it does have better transport links in than Shipley and Bradford. Do you have any evidence to your claim the hierarchs would rather work in Leeds and that being the crux to the decision to base themselves there? Or is it just a wild accusation?

 

It’s a wild accusation. Albeit founded on numerous conversations with hierarchs from numerous organisations over the years, when explaining why their organisation chose Leeds. I would be really surprised if the senior civil servants responsible for the decision thought much differently, though.

Leeds, of course, has been blessed (at least it seems to me) in recent times with a commercially clued-up City Council, that has been very smart in attracting inward investment. Unlike Bradford, whose pretty useless Council often seems totally dysfunctional in comparison, IMO.

I will never forget how they got Harvey Nicks to Leeds...so when the NHS was looking at moving out of London the mandarins could tell their reluctant wives that Leeds would be fine because it had a Harvey Nicks...And how the Council so brilliantly took the credit for the benefits of when the (then-depressed) Leeds was made a Development Area by the Tories...

ps. Leeds is bound to have better transport links, if it gets the Lion’s share of the transport infrastructure investment? If they want to move more and more jobs to Leeds city centre, they need to build fast road links and more rail capacity and open more stations. My wife set off for St James hospital in Leeds at around 7.15am last week (we live not far from the big tax office at Shipley, btw, to give an idea of location) and arrived well after 9. A journey of 18 miles. Not uncommon. Move the jobs, turn the surrounding areas into dormitories - build the infrastructure.

[fieldofclothofgold]

I used to find Chapletown road handy ,the only trouble was risk leaving the car for a few minutes or even getting mugged stepping out, but that was just one area I hear Manchester is like that all over . Did LCC sign over the freehold for Redhall to the RFL or do they get it at a peppercorn rent ?

[DoubleD]

11 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

It’s a wild accusation. Albeit founded on numerous conversations with hierarchs from numerous organisations over the years, when explaining why their organisation chose Leeds. I would be really surprised if the senior civil servants responsible for the decision thought much differently, though.

Leeds, of course, has been blessed (at least it seems to me) in recent times with a commercially clued-up City Council, that has been very smart in attracting inward investment. Unlike Bradford, whose pretty useless Council often seems totally dysfunctional in comparison, IMO.

I will never forget how they got Harvey Nicks to Leeds...so when the NHS was looking at moving out of London the mandarins could tell their reluctant wives that Leeds would be fine because it had a Harvey Nicks...And how the Council so brilliantly took the credit for the benefits of when the (then-depressed) Leeds was made a Development Area by the Tories...

I don't doubt it is a contributory factor, but I also don't believe it would be a primary factor. Bring on the East Coast mainline and also HS2, walking distance from the train station with civil servants regularly making trips to London would be a factor. It is probably infinitely easier to attract potential staff/grads to Leeds, as it has a large student population.

[fieldofclothofgold]

16 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I definitely think it could be viable as an "operational" HQ. However, media and the rest would have to be in a more accessible location imo. 

they couldn't afford it either to buy or rent in my opinion

[DoubleD]

17 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I definitely think it could be viable as an "operational" HQ. However, media and the rest would have to be in a more accessible location imo. 

Media/marketing for RFL is already at Media City anyway

[ettenna]

George hotel is for sale

[DoubleD]

Just now, fieldofclothofgold said:

they couldn't afford it either to buy or rent in my opinion

Not at current rates. But they were negotiated when Leeds United were desperate and needed to sell the training ground so were in no position to bargain. Without a primary tenant, that facility is a burden to the owners, so a favourable deal could certainly be done in my opinion

[owls]

Correct me if I am wrong but have UK Athletics done something similar at the Alexander stadium in Birmingham,

 

left London ,moved to Brum and built an new stand with offices, it looks a decent stadium now,

 

[Adeybull]

7 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

I don't doubt it is a contributory factor, but I also don't believe it would be a primary factor. Bring on the East Coast mainline and also HS2, walking distance from the train station with civil servants regularly making trips to London would be a factor. It is probably infinitely easier to attract potential staff/grads to Leeds, as it has a large student population.

Without a doubt, Leeds would look much more attractive now by comparison than it did back then. To a large extent, IMO. because it has had the Lion's share of the new investment in the county.

In 1985, they shut the Wortley Curve, which meant Bradford now had no direct rail link to London without trains going into Leeds station first then reversing out.  Shortly afterwards, they decided to build the new NHS HQ at Quarry Hill. They completed the ends of the M1 (as was) and M621 to very close to Leeds city centre, but never ever completed the M606 down to close to Bradford City Centre.  So getting into the city centre from the end of the M606 remains a pain. They did a lot of work at the M62/M1 junction and the M62/M621 junction, but have never proceeded with the direct link to Bradford from the M62 westbound at Chain Bar, missing out the roundabout. They spent a load of money upgrading most of Leed's outer ring road - albeit some stretches remain a nightmare.  Most of Bradford's outer ring road remains a jumbled collection of stupidly-congested side roads someone joined up and called a ring road. There is no easy or quick way round Bradford to get to the Aire Valley and beyond.  None of these things help Bradford's case in attracting inward investment. 

It is not just Bradford, of course. Trying to drive round or commute anywhere in most of the rest of West Yorkshire is usually a nightmare. Keighley to Huddersfield, anyone? And folk around Huddersfield know all about the nightmare of Cooper Bridge, on the main route into the town from the M62 westbound.

Never mind, though.  We have the wonderful cycling Superhighway between Leeds and Bradford, built at major cost and with major disruption. Great for getting people fit by having to power themselves up the big hills between the two cities, in all weathers, briefcase strapped to your back, to then arrive at the office all sweaty and wet and blown about. Maybe that is why it always looks so busy, and never a white elephant to be seen...

I think the situation now is that, because of all the massive investment in Leeds in recent years, it is bound to be the most attrractive location to those who make the location decisions.  Especially to those who regularly travel to London. So Leeds just gets richer and the rest of the county just gets poorer - Catch 22.

[Adeybull]

33 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Not at current rates. But they were negotiated when Leeds United were desperate and needed to sell the training ground so were in no position to bargain. Without a primary tenant, that facility is a burden to the owners, so a favourable deal could certainly be done in my opinion

Why, out of interest, would a site north-east of Leeds and well out in the country be a better location for an RFL HQ than a site just off the motorway in West Yorkshire, prettty well centrally-situated for most of the RL heartland?  Or for that matter, a site just off the M62 just over the Hill?

[Mattrhino]

2 hours ago, southstand loiner said:

that's why you sell the property to maximise your return . you then lease a property with a far less upfront costing than buying one thus you have a surplus to invest in the game . Bradford, Manchester or Leeds does not really matter that much as long as there's good access . Bradford is a bit behind of course in that the rail station is not really a national mainline is it but perhaps costs could be a factor . Manchester yes has everything going for it apart from the fact that I would recon over 90% of the permanent office staff at redhall will be Leeds area based which could impact in a few ways not least redundancy payments and loss of experience through that .

Fantastic for a short term gain and a quick buck. But the best businesses keep thier assests.

[Mattrhino]

1 hour ago, Tongs ya bas said:

Red hall is an attractive building with a beautiful interior

The rfl don't own red hall

I did not know that.

[Dave T]

I'm really not sure the location of HQ is that important. Maybe in some sectors, but I think getting good facilities for a good rate in a location where you can get good people is the important factor.

We have offices in Salford and London and can use outside venues if we need important meetings.

[Adeybull]

3 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

Fantastic for a short term gain and a quick buck. But the best businesses keep thier assests.

Do they?

The most succesful businesses recognise when to acquire an asset; when to retain an asset; and when to dispose of an asset, because the capital (financial and human) tied up in it could be better employed elsewhere in the business, or because the asset no longer delivers the benefits it once did or was originally intended to.

Not sure Rot Hall could anyway be described as much of an "asset"?  Given I believe the site is leased, and access from the M62 is poor.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, DoubleD said:

Actually the reason behind the move was to centralise operations, so instead of paying for multiple offices, they were paying for 1 where they could more easily control operations. They didn't just decide they'd all rather work in Leeds

For access it’s 100% better.

I suppose better for Liam Watts too.

[Adeybull]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I'm really not sure the location of HQ is that important. Maybe in some sectors, but I think getting good facilities for a good rate in a location where you can get good people is the important factor.

We have offices in Salford and London and can use outside venues if we need important meetings.

Indeed.  I just so wish the RFL had not got involved in acquiring Odsal Stadium - for whatever reason, and whether or not Wood had it in mind back then to relocate the RFL.  Then, the dabate about where (if anywhere) to relocate would not be poisoned by Bulls-related allegations.

I guess where to relocate would be very much influenced by what facilities you want, on one site? Pure offices (a very big one for Wood, admittedly) and/or a media centre would be a very different proposition to training and development pitches and facilities?  Personally, I am not sure a relocation to at/near/over/under/behind Odsal would be ideal for either of those scenarios? But might risk falling between two stools?  But if it somehow led to there being a Bulls still in existence and a stadium to play in, as a by-product of it all, I suspect most Bulls fans would be grateful for whatever they got?  And could bear the inevitable, and undeserved, vitriol from elsewhere?

[Mattrhino]

5 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

Do they?

The most succesful businesses recognise when to acquire an asset; when to retain an asset; and when to dispose of an asset, because the capital (financial and human) tied up in it could be better employed elsewhere in the business, or because the asset no longer delivers the benefits it once did or was originally intended to.

Not sure Rot Hall could anyway be described as much of an "asset"?  Given I believe the site is leased, and access from the M62 is poor.

I thought it was owned. Which would make it a great assest in one the best property markets in the north.

In my defence the article did mention the RFL selling Red Hall.

[Adeybull]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

For access it’s 100% better.

 

For access from London, maybe.

For access from where most of the current staff work - hardly?

[Tongs ya bas]

11 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

I did not know that.

I owe you an apology. The council own the land and facilities around it. The RFL own the house and stables.

Sorry mate

[Adeybull]

8 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

I thought it was owned. Which would make it a great assest in one the best property markets in the north.

In my defence the article did mention the RFL selling Red Hall.

The article did, yes. Although - and in fairness to you - the T&A is not nowdays known for the accuracy in the detail of its stories.  Since the excellent Ross Heppenstall was let go, most of what they report is merely someone else's copy.

If the RFL DID own Rot Hall, then I suggest they shgould very definitely seek to sell it for development. Its like that absurd number plate we used to see on Uncle Mo's car when he was CEO, RFL1 (I think it was?). You hold an asset because it provides value to the business, not because (e.g.) it satisfies the directors' egos, or because it is an "investment" when you do not have loads of free funds.

You would sell the site, bank the development potential profit, buy or (more likely) lease a new HQ somewhere where the land cost a lot less, and use the funds released to further the core activities of your business.  i would suggest?

ps. With Tongs ya Bas' clarification (I thought the whole site was leased, but now I recall what TYB says is the case), if you owned the land and it had development value you would surely defo sell it? If you owned the building, you would presumably examine whether the building was fit and suitable for present purpose - especially if you wanted to build other facilities round it - and if not then, in accordance with ny earlier post, sell the asset and acquire a suitable replacement?

[Mattrhino]

2 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

I owe you an apology. The council own the land and facilities around it. The RFL own the house and stables.

Sorry mate

I assume the land would be extremly expensive to purchase if they want to expand if it would be even available to purchase.

[Adeybull]

4 minutes ago, Mattrhino said:

I assume the land would be extremly expensive to purchase if they want to expand if it would be even available to purchase.

I'm assuming it is in the green belt? But you would assume that the Council would want to - indeed would have to - ensure that any development gain accrued to them not the RFL?