[Bullseye]

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:14 pm  

Anyway, back on topic if we are in negotiation to take over Odsal from the Council then does that allow us to say, sell it for landfill and use the money to develop a site across the road? The club has three options:

1. Fill up the bowl and build a new stadium on the same site.
2. Fill up the bowl and use the money raised to build on the Richard Dunn site
3. Stay as we are but see us bleed money keeping the place open.

The Richard Dunn site is likely to cost. Let’s say the Council wanted £15m for it. We’d need that again to build a decent ground in the style of Warrington or Leigh. Would selling Odsal for landfill raise that kind of money?

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:58 pm  

Peter Hood wrote:

It was Chris Caisley's administration that started the whole demise of this once proud club, but everyone's opinion will depend on whose side they're on.

I'll still stand my original thoughts that the irreversible damage game from the power struggle between Whitcut, Moore and Green.

It was a very difficult situation which neither I nor do suspect you know the full implications, and to castigate the people who did their best to sustain our Club is uncalled for.

[Bulliac]

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:09 pm  

Depends on exactly what makes up 'Odsal'.

The actual stadium, particularly if we're talking about a more modern ground, should be somewhat smaller than the the current ground. The way I see it is that there should be a fair amount of surplus ground left over to use for 'other purposes', like retail perhaps. It's not that long ago we were going to have a Superdome sponsored by a supermarket, well the commercial market is totally different today but so are our needs - we need a half-decent ground, not a super anything. I don't think the idea is too far fetched, to be honest.

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:11 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Anyway, back on topic if we are in negotiation to take over Odsal from the Council then does that allow us to say, sell it for landfill and use the money to develop a site across the road? The club has three options:

1. Fill up the bowl and build a new stadium on the same site.
2. Fill up the bowl and use the money raised to build on the Richard Dunn site
3. Stay as we are but see us bleed money keeping the place open.

The Richard Dunn site is likely to cost. Let’s say the Council wanted £15m for it. We’d need that again to build a decent ground in the style of Warrington or Leigh. Would selling Odsal for landfill raise that kind of money?

I think secret alternative 4.

Fill up the bowl, clear the ground behind and use it for housing and new stadium on the same site - with one of those snazzy arty walkways over the main road to connect our site to the Richard Dunne development (or the Bradford Southern strategic sporting hub - whatever management speak applies to council planning these days....)

Sports Village Mk3!!!!

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:45 pm  

Sell the Odsal freehold to property developers, team up with BPA to purchase the Richard Dunn site and build a nice little 15-20k stadium for us both to use.

If only it was that easy

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:56 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

It was a very difficult situation which neither I nor do suspect you know the full implications, and to castigate the people who did their best to sustain our Club is uncalled for.

The full implications were that money was changed hands between two of the three mentioned to remove the one they didn't want.

The history books will show that it was Marc Green who demanded the £150,000 loan back from Mark Moore, which he knew Mark Moore could never repay, thus putting the club into administration and allowing him control.

Whilst at the same time removing Whitcut and disgracing the three cowboys.

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:04 pm  

The feasibility study that we did on the ground circa 2012 indicated that the value of Odsal to landfill would approaching the £30m mark.

You can see why Odsal is an attractive proposition to Mark Green in pursuing his attempts to purchase the lease from the RFL, thus completing the puzzle.

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:00 pm  

Peter Hood wrote:

The feasibility study that we did on the ground circa 2012 indicated that the value of Odsal to landfill would approaching the £30m mark.

You can see why Odsal is an attractive proposition to Mark Green in pursuing his attempts to purchase the lease from the RFL, thus completing the puzzle.

All your posts sound like sour grapes, to me.

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:10 pm  

Peter Hood wrote:

The feasibility study that we did on the ground circa 2012 indicated that the value of Odsal to landfill would approaching the £30m mark.


You can see why Odsal is an attractive proposition to Mark Green in pursuing his attempts to purchase the lease from the RFL, thus completing the puzzle.

May I just draw your attention to an article that appeared in the T&A in 2011/12 and the financial difficulties you say were created by others???
It's a pretty damming indictment I would say, of the tenure over the non Caisley years from say 2006?

Peter Hood today warned that another season of failure was “simply unthinkable” after the Bulls reported increased losses and a fall in turnover.
Bradford’s accounts for the 2010 financial year revealed losses of £311,403, compared to £78,728 in 2009, while turnover fell from £4.6million to £3.96million.
Yet chairman Hood cited mitigating factors for the slump – as 2010 saw the Bulls pay the second, undisclosed instalment of a three-year compensation package to rivals Leeds over the Iestyn Harris transfer wrangle.
It was also the first year since 2003 that Bradford did not benefit from £334,286 of non-cash deferred income arising from the club’s return to Odsal.
Furthermore, the 2010 campaign marked the Bulls’ lowest crowds of the Super League era as the average home gate dropped to 8,434.
That left Hood to acknowledge the importance of Bradford – who have recruited six new players and will again spend close to or up to the salary cap in 2012 – emerging as a serious force once again.
The average Super League club lost £553,879 in the same period last year, so we did better than most, but our football hasn’t been good enough for too long and we know that

The time is gone to the annals of history, shall we leave it alone and concentrate on the future!

Re: odsal : Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:16 pm  

Rarebreed wrote:

May I just draw your attention to an article that appeared in the T&A in 2011/12 and the financial difficulties you say were created by others???
It's a pretty damming indictment I would say, of the tenure over the non Caisley years from say 2006?

Peter Hood today warned that another season of failure was “simply unthinkable” after the Bulls reported increased losses and a fall in turnover.
Bradford’s accounts for the 2010 financial year revealed losses of £311,403, compared to £78,728 in 2009, while turnover fell from £4.6million to £3.96million.
Yet chairman Hood cited mitigating factors for the slump – as 2010 saw the Bulls pay the second, undisclosed instalment of a three-year compensation package to rivals Leeds over the Iestyn Harris transfer wrangle.
It was also the first year since 2003 that Bradford did not benefit from £334,286 of non-cash deferred income arising from the club’s return to Odsal.
Furthermore, the 2010 campaign marked the Bulls’ lowest crowds of the Super League era as the average home gate dropped to 8,434.
That left Hood to acknowledge the importance of Bradford – who have recruited six new players and will again spend close to or up to the salary cap in 2012 – emerging as a serious force once again.
The average Super League club lost £553,879 in the same period last year, so we did better than most, but our football hasn’t been good enough for too long and we know that

The time is gone to the annals of history, shall we leave it alone and concentrate on the future!

Those repayments to Leeds over the Harris transfer that are mentioned amounted to £580,000. When you factor in solicitor and court costs that figure increases significantly to the £700,000 barrier.

At the time of the Harris incident the board of directors were confident that these cost were affordable and that we as a club were able to budget going forward without this settlement with Leeds having any great impact on the business.

This was proved wrong.

Perhaps the finger should be pointed in the direction of a local specialist sports solicitor, who assured the Bradford Bulls board that the deal to sign Harris from Cardiff was watertight.

If you're having a slanderous dig at previous Odsal administrations then may I suggest you look at the current accounts and you'll just how much of a hand to mouth existence the club is currently experiencing.