Odsal - RFL Selling the lease

[Expatknight]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Guaranteed to lose at least £500,000 on any sale, not that one is coming, losing over £100,000 just on maintenance and upkeep, and charging the Bulls an under market rate rent.

It looked wrong at the time and looks even more so now, surely someone has to be held to account over this !

 

[Ovenden Grunt]

Anyone out there? Mr Wood?

[bamfordsbeans]

News like this just adds to the controversy over the IMG ratings.

Bradford are relatively near the top of Championship clubs and with such an uncertain future this should certainly be taken into account.

When you add in the situations with regard to Hull,Castleford and Salford there is going to be much to do to convince the paying public the game has got the most viable outcomes for the future.

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, bamfordsbeans said:

News like this just adds to the controversy over the IMG ratings.

Bradford are relatively near the top of Championship clubs and with such an uncertain future this should certainly be taken into account.

When you add in the situations with regard to Hull,Castleford and Salford there is going to be much to do to convince the paying public the game has got the most viable outcomes for the future.

Can't agree. For one, how do you define, assess, measure etc what constitutes an "uncertain future"? 

Secondly, the controversy is more imagined than real. In our sport, there are always the vociferous few who who oppose change, any change: the change from unlimited tackles to four tackles, the change from four tackles to six tackles, the change from a monolithic league to two divisions, the change to SuperLeague, the move from Red Hall, the appointment of x, y, z to RFL CEO, the change of Sky commentators and pundits, the introduction of club names: Warriors, Wildcats etc., the change from GB to England, the introduction of the video ref......

Edited April 11 by JohnM

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, bamfordsbeans said:

News like this just adds to the controversy over the IMG ratings.

Bradford are relatively near the top of Championship clubs and with such an uncertain future this should certainly be taken into account.

When you add in the situations with regard to Hull,Castleford and Salford there is going to be much to do to convince the paying public the game has got the most viable outcomes for the future.

Yep, Hulls first team deserves the kicking at the moment but I can assure you the rest of the club, as well as the facilities, are excellent.  100% positive for the future.

[Ovenden Grunt]

48 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Can't agree. For one, how do you define, assess, measure etc what constitutes an "uncertain future"? 

Secondly, the controversy is more imagined than real. In our sport, there are always the vociferous few who who oppose change, any change: the change from unlimited tackles to four tackles, the change from four tackles to six tackles, the change from a monolithic league to two divisions, the change to SuperLeague, the move from Red Hall, the appointment of x, y, z to RFL CEO, the change of Sky commentators and pundits, the introduction of club names: Warriors, Wildcats etc., the change from GB to England, the introduction of the video ref......

What about the change from having standards/morals to having none? 

[gingerjon]

19 minutes ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

What about the change from having standards/morals to having none? 

Once we started paying people we were deemed to be immoral.

[Tommygilf]

19 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Once we started paying people we were deemed to be immoral.

I sincerely believe so many RL fans now would have remained in the Union in 1895 with their attitudes.

[Worzel]

11 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

No sign of a sale, and looks an expensive liability for the RFL:

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/exclusive-odsal-stadium-latest-with-no-sale-agreed-and-scale-of-rfl-losses-revealed

All the noise elsewhere on the forum about the crimes of IMG and other partners, whilst this sort of stuff is going on. 

So, just so I can get this clear... Nigel Wood buys Odsal for the RFL to save Bradford Bulls, costing the game at least £500k in lost asset value and over £100k per year in ongoing costs, so let's call it £1m. Nigel Wood becomes owner/chairman of Bradford Bulls, and benefits from the under-market rent. Nothing to see here at all, move along please. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

4 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Guaranteed to lose at least £500,000 on any sale, not that one is coming, losing over £100,000 just on maintenance and upkeep, and charging the Bulls an under market rate rent.

Certainly looks like the RFL have been giving a (probably unconstitutional) financial benefit to one of the member clubs for some considerable time......unless the other members have agreed of course.

[LeeF]

50 minutes ago, Worzel said:

All the noise elsewhere on the forum about the crimes of IMG and other partners, whilst this sort of stuff is going on. 

So, just so I can get this clear... Nigel Wood buys Odsal for the RFL to save Bradford Bulls, costing the game at least £500k in lost asset value and over £100k per year in ongoing costs, so let's call it £1m. Nigel Wood becomes owner/chairman of Bradford Bulls, and benefits from the under-market rent. Nothing to see here at all, move along please. 

It doesn’t get anywhere near basic Corporate Governance

[RBKnight]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

All the noise elsewhere on the forum about the crimes of IMG and other partners, whilst this sort of stuff is going on. 

So, just so I can get this clear... Nigel Wood buys Odsal for the RFL to save Bradford Bulls, costing the game at least £500k in lost asset value and over £100k per year in ongoing costs, so let's call it £1m. Nigel Wood becomes owner/chairman of Bradford Bulls, and benefits from the under-market rent. Nothing to see here at all, move along please. 

No, Nigel Wood grabs the Odsal lease to cover the unsecured debt the Bulls had with the RFL before they went into admin (sold to the public as keeping a "historic venue") 

What's a "market rent" for playing at Odsal ? (cue the jokes )

If the current rents were that under-valued, the RFL wouldn't be having the trouble as they are selling off the lease.

[RigbyLuger]

Plenty of time before the paper is out on Monday to find stuff out.

[Worzel]

7 hours ago, LeeF said:

It doesn’t get anywhere near basic Corporate Governance

It’s the sort of thing that would stop Sport England giving you any funding. If we still had any.

Personally I think there should be an investigation, somebody needs to be accountable for this… maybe Geoff Toovey should do it?

 

[Worzel]

6 hours ago, RBKnight said:

No, Nigel Wood grabs the Odsal lease to cover the unsecured debt the Bulls had with the RFL before they went into admin (sold to the public as keeping a "historic venue") 

What's a "market rent" for playing at Odsal ? (cue the jokes )

If the current rents were that under-valued, the RFL wouldn't be having the trouble as they are selling off the lease.

Ok fine, so let’s ask the logical prior question then: Why did Wood allow the RFL to lend so much money to a member club in the first place, before then benefitting later as the owner? Stinks to high heaven 

Re: rent you’ve got it backwards: The fact the  rent is low is what will be driving the value of the land down, it doesn’t generate a yield to justify the purchase. Market forces would say “use the land for something else, and kick the sports businesses out, if they’re not prepared to give you a reasonable return”. Either way you cut it, it’s a huge subsidy. 

[JohnM]

10 hours ago, Ovenden Grunt said:

What about the change from having standards/morals to having none? 

Not sure you should be cconfessing on a public forum.

[Northern Eel]

16 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Guaranteed to lose at least £500,000 on any sale, not that one is coming, losing over £100,000 just on maintenance and upkeep, and charging the Bulls an under market rate rent.

I think the RFL should be made to pay Catalans a bond of £500k to be allowed to continue administering the game, just in case they end up (predictably) selling it on the cheap to Bradford.

[Adelaide Tiger]

14 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I sincerely believe so many RL fans now would have remained in the Union in 1895 with their attitudes.

What do you mean since 1895?

Some on here would have chased after William Webb Ellis shouting ‘Oi, put that ball down you impudent young man and kick it like everyone else!’

P.S. I thought I ought to point out that I know that Webb Ellis is just a myth before someone responds.

[Worzel]

9 hours ago, Northern Eel said:

I think the RFL should be made to pay Catalans a bond of £500k to be allowed to continue administering the game, just in case they end up (predictably) selling it on the cheap to Bradford.

Perfectly encapsulates how sickening this situation is. We're a sport with almost no money, to the extent that we do mad things like charge a club a bond to compete in a comp. The RFL blowing £1m supporting one club is like the Premier League dropping £250m into the coffers of one of its clubs. Can you imagine the national scandal that would create?

It's an unbelievable set of circumstances. I wouldn't expect the West Yorkshire clique of rugby league journalists and administrators to treat it as such though. All Nigel's boys. 

[Toby Chopra]

10 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Perfectly encapsulates how sickening this situation is. We're a sport with almost no money, to the extent that we do mad things like charge a club a bond to compete in a comp. The RFL blowing £1m supporting one club is like the Premier League dropping £250m into the coffers of one of its clubs. Can you imagine the national scandal that would create?

It's an unbelievable set of circumstances. I wouldn't expect the West Yorkshire clique of rugby league journalists and administrators to treat it as such though. All Nigel's boys. 

I think that's overly conspiratorial. The details and the RFL's justification of of the Odsal purchase were public at the time and although a lot of people grumbled, it was signed off by Richard Lewis and the RFL board. Which is ultimately the clubs themselves.

What no-one predicted in 2012 was that the Bulls - who were still a SL club at the time - would go into sharp decline, lowering the value of the asset. And that nothing would have changed 12 years later.

Should they have predicted that? Quite possibly. But it's simple bad management for all to see, dodgy dealings not really necessary. The fact that Nigel took over the Bulls later shows what a small time sport we are, but doesn't mean it's corrupt.

The fact is the RFL could still get out of this lease with minimal losses if it sold out to non-sport developers (and got Bradford council's agreement to do so).

But that would leave the Bulls homeless and complete their transition into another Oldham-type club: great history but forever dependent on others for a home.

In 2012 I can see why some people wanted to avoid that, but perhaps now in 2024 it's time for the RFL to accept that "saving historic Odsal" and dreaming of a resurgent Bulls just aren't a priority any more.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think that's overly conspiratorial. The details and the RFL's justification of of the Odsal purchase were public at the time and although a lot of people grumbled, it was signed off by Richard Lewis and the RFL board. Which is ultimately the clubs themselves.

What no-one predicted in 2012 was that the Bulls - who were still a SL club at the time - would go into sharp decline, lowering the value of the asset. And that nothing would have changed 12 years later.

Should they have predicted that? Quite possibly. But it's simple bad management for all to see, dodgy dealings not really necessary. The fact that Nigel took over the Bulls later shows what a small time sport we are, but doesn't mean it's corrupt.

The fact is the RFL could still get out of this lease with minimal losses if it sold out to non-sport developers (and got Bradford council's agreement to do so).

But that would leave the Bulls homeless and complete their transition into another Oldham-type club: great history but forever dependent on others for a home.

In 2012 I can see why some people wanted to avoid that, but perhaps now in 2024 it's time for the RFL to accept that "saving historic Odsal" and dreaming of a resurgent Bulls just aren't a priority any more.

Minimal losses appears to be £500,000 on any sale and £100,000 per year minimum every year since purchase?

[PREPOSTEROUS]

Beggers belief Bradford would want the lease back. The RFL make an annual loss of £100k with a rent paying tenant, so in reality that would be a £200k drain on Bradford.  

Odsal is a money pit and nobody in their right mind would take the lease on for sporting purposes.

[Toby Chopra]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Minimal losses appears to be £500,000 on any sale and £100,000 per year minimum every year since purchase?

The way I read it, the £100k yearly loss is incurred by the annual repair costs of keeping it as a safe sporting venue, even after the rents. So, yes, past spend won't be recovered. But if Odsal is sold to developers I find it hard to see that they'd only get £700,000k for that site.

What they seem to be looking for is a buyer who will take on the stadium as a sporting venue for the existing tenants (or at least the Bulls) In that circumstance, yes, they'll make a loss.

Reading between the lines, I wonder if the RFL have leaked this either to put pressure on the Bulls to up their bid - or to soften up public opinion for when they sell the lease back to the Bulls at a loss. I can't decide which yet!

[Toby Chopra]

13 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

Beggers belief Bradford would want the lease back. The RFL make an annual loss of £100k with a rent paying tenant, so in reality that would be a £200k drain on Bradford.  

Odsal is a money pit and nobody in their right mind would take the lease on for sporting purposes.

The history of clubs leaving their historical home without a proper long term option to move too is not good. 

Perhaps Bradford have reached the point where they have no other option. But I can see why they'd try everything to stay and hope to redevelop, as something gets lost for good once you leave, unless you have a purpose built replacement ready to go.

Edited April 12 by Toby Chopra

[Worzel]

25 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

I think that's overly conspiratorial. The details and the RFL's justification of of the Odsal purchase were public at the time and although a lot of people grumbled, it was signed off by Richard Lewis and the RFL board. Which is ultimately the clubs themselves.

What no-one predicted in 2012 was that the Bulls - who were still a SL club at the time - would go into sharp decline, lowering the value of the asset. And that nothing would have changed 12 years later.

Should they have predicted that? Quite possibly. But it's simple bad management for all to see, dodgy dealings not really necessary. The fact that Nigel took over the Bulls later shows what a small time sport we are, but doesn't mean it's corrupt.

The fact is the RFL could still get out of this lease with minimal losses if it sold out to non-sport developers (and got Bradford council's agreement to do so).

But that would leave the Bulls homeless and complete their transition into another Oldham-type club: great history but forever dependent on others for a home.

In 2012 I can see why some people wanted to avoid that, but perhaps now in 2024 it's time for the RFL to accept that "saving historic Odsal" and dreaming of a resurgent Bulls just aren't a priority any more.

It's not overly conspirational. Leaving aside the ginormous, screaming conflict of interest, the facts are this: The governing body has spent about 75% of its net worth propping up one, single failing club in West Yorkshire. It's the equivalent of the NRL sending Cronulla Sharks about $100m, maybe more. It's off the scale just on that basis alone.

Then add in what Big Nige did afterwards, and it becomes something else...