: Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:40 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Of course not!

AJ seems to be saying that the money going towards the OSV from the Council should be shared equally across all facilities across the entire district rather than a big chunk spent in one place because it's too hard to travel from Keighley to Odsal.

This seems to be regardless of need, and regardless of the fact that better facilities could be provided if resources were pooled.

I get the feeling that some folk wouldn't be making any noise at all if there was no stadium as part of the OSV. AJ has already said the scheme is a Trojan Horse for the Bulls. It seems a bit odd that if that were the case why so many organisations would be signing up.

The benefits of a new stadium and the OSV being built would filter down to council tax payers whether they use it or not. It's a good project and I hope it goes ahead.

For the record, I don't have any problems with the Richard Dunn being replaced, it's a tip, and it's outdated. That area needs new public recreational facilities, no doubt at all.

For the record, the same could be applied to Keighley Leisure Centre and Pool, and Shipley pool ( I can't say anything about the other facilities in the area, as I'm not familiar with them).

The issue I have is of funding. Bradford Bulls were paid £4.6 (?) million to take care of the stadium for the foreseeable future. What happens to that money now? I'm not stirring it here, but surely that's a reasonable question?

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:45 pm  

AndreaB wrote:

If other towns and cites far smaller than Bradford can have sports villages then why should we be denied just because some residents on the other side of the city don't think it's close enough.

Because Andrea, and I hate to drag this up again, we'll end up paying for it!!

AndreaB wrote:

The sports village could not be developed at VP or it probably would have already happened. At Odsal we have the space, the motorway access and the interest.

Andrea, talk of motorway access isn't relevant at all. How much of the metropolitan district of Bradford does the M606/M62 serve?

AndreaB wrote:

The sports centre could be replaced and the valuable land used to help pay for it. Could Keighley offer all that?

Nobody said it could.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:31 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

We pay rates, so should expect the same level of facilities.

This discussion is getting silly, it sounds like to me it's a case of if i can't have direct access to something i don't see why others should, when i pay the same tax...whilst we're at it why don't we look at the spend per head by the government and have a go at the southerners.

Please use your common sense, the access links, the land, the proximity to the university... all already discussed, at least 1 team who could go some way to filling it and the replacement of Richard Dunnes, which as loss making, your paying for now!

If you object to using the money for this what else would you use the money for?

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:54 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

The issue I have is of funding. Bradford Bulls were paid £4.6 (?) million to take care of the stadium for the foreseeable future. What happens to that money now? I'm not stirring it here, but surely that's a reasonable question?

Adeybull, posting in another place wrote:

Regarding any move from Odsal, unfortunately people are overlooking one very important caveat. If the Bulls do not play at least 90% of their home matches at Odsal between now and 2019, most of the Odsal Settlement money has to be repaid to the Council (and understandably so). The liability runs off with time on a sliding scale, but as of now there will be about £1.8m of exposure.

So the Bulls cannot leave Odsal without having to pay a penalty which is far far more than the club could ever afford. And can you see the Council being allowed to waive that penalty, even if they were minded to?

So there you have it: can't afford to stay at Odsal; can't afford to leave.

So, guys, its either the OSV, or some deal with BCFC which gets the Council's blessing such that "to save both clubs" the penalty gets waived. Which takes us right back to 2002 again, where it was a widely-held view that the Council wanted to settle with the Bulls, Bulls to leave Odsal and move to VP as a very junior partner, and pay the c.£4.7m to BCFC to save them. Ergo, the Council would have bailed out BCFC by the back door AND got out of the Odsal commitment AND got the freehold for development; and the Bulls...well we all have to make sacrifices, don't we...?

As someone who could be seen on TV and in the press holding the long "Try for Odsal" banner at the time, I hope we get some solution to this dilemma which suits all parties.

The lump sum had several components. IIRC it went something broadly like this (don't hold me to the details):

Part of it was to pay for urgent capital/maintenance expenditure for which the council was responsible, and that was sunk into the ground up front. Remember the Council still owns the ground. That money never came to the club.

Part of the money was the net present value of the EXISTING council commitment up to 2019 - costs of running the ground. Thats where the contingent liability to repay - see my post - likely comes from. This was not new money at all, and the Council gets it back pro rata if we move out.

Part of the money was compensation for ending the EXISTING annual payment to the club (I think which arose following the 1986 Speedway WC where the club gave the rights to food and drink sales etc to the Council in exchange for an annual sum).

Not of this was new money. None. It was all existing council obligations dating back to 1986. All the settlement was was two single discounted payments and completion of necessary stadium work. Again: not new money as it was all expenditure the council was contractually committed to.

But I guess this just risks raking up the 2002 argument all over again, where each of the different camps simply refused to budge from their entrenched positions regardless of fact or logic

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:12 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

For the record, I don't have any problems with the Richard Dunn being replaced, it's a tip, and it's outdated. That area needs new public recreational facilities, no doubt at all.

For the record, the same could be applied to Keighley Leisure Centre and Pool, and Shipley pool ( I can't say anything about the other facilities in the area, as I'm not familiar with them).

The issue I have is of funding. Bradford Bulls were paid £4.6 (?) million to take care of the stadium for the foreseeable future. What happens to that money now? I'm not stirring it here, but surely that's a reasonable question?

That funding was necessary because of the chronic mismanagement of Odsal by Bradford Council since the year dot. Odsal and the Bulls are potentially two of Bradford's greatest icons, yet the short-sightedness and incompetence of the Council has allowed the former and consequently the latter to reach a parlous state. If there is a solution that also provides community facilities, ones far more likely to be used with a professional sports club on site and drawing publicity, surely this is just the sort of thing rates are for?

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:15 pm  

Oh God, I've got the full gang on to me now

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:23 pm  

aj cougar wrote:

Oh God, I've got the full gang on to me now

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:36 pm  

BTW, I'd fully support a 'Keighley Sporting Village' around Lawkholme Lane. But AFAIK it hasn't be proposed. Get Keighley RU to sell up at Utley, get the bowls and the cricket involved... also, it could help with community relations which I understand are and have been a bit of an issue for some time. The way Hood sold OSV was pensioners playing bowls next to teenagers doing kickiboxing, people coming in for one sport then trying another.

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:40 pm  

af wrote:

:lol:

BTW, I'd fully support a 'Keighley Sporting Village' around Lawkholme Lane.

Well with the plods right next door it shouldn't cost much for the policing of the thousands who would be attending...

[Bulliac]

: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:26 pm  

af wrote:

:lol:

BTW, I'd fully support a 'Keighley Sporting Village' around Lawkholme Lane. But AFAIK it hasn't be proposed.

Isn`t that a bit near the edge of the district? Jeez, it would take me an age to get there.............no, I`m not paying my rates for that