So, if it's all about the land & the lease. Who stands to gain? Council, obviously, as the freeholders. Rfl as the leaseholders. Don't know what covenants are still in play. Bulls are only going to get a few crumbs now, if they're lucky.
When the RFL paid £1.5m for the lease - was that market value, under market value?
I can't find it, but I remember the last time we had a sporting village plan in place (pre-banking crash), It was going to cost about £80m. There was an article (and my memory is hazy) but I think Yorkshire forward were paying £4m, Sport England were in for £2m, there were other grants, Tesco was paying a big chunk and Caiseley was asked how much Bulls were putting in and I think he said the Bulls were putting in the value of the land, as long leaseholders, which was £7m. I know land values dropped a lot after the crash, but £5.5m?
Legally, what the RFL have done, and reported to have done, and is in the public domain, seems fine. But ethically, if they took advantage of a financially distressed member club and relieved them of their last asset for a knock down price, that has always sat poorly with me.