New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 8:44 am  

Read to end please, it's not just about Bradford City.

O.K. Bradford City have new owners. Bradford Northern has a relatively new owner. These people all seem to have the fact that they are not dyed in the wool supporters of their relative clubs. Do people think that there is now a chance that they could get together and build a joint stadium. It may be that they have a detached opinion on the sentiment behind either stadium (and I am not saying that is either a good or bad thing). Green has already show an interest in obtaining the lease from the RFL with a view to buying the ground from the council. Further development of VP is hampered by the fact that they are shoe horned into their present location. Perhaps the way forward is a joint venture at a new location. I know that we could certainly do better without the millstone of Odsal around our necks.

[Bulliac]

Re: New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 9:03 am  

Not sure it was ever 'the owners', other than fro financial reasons.

It's the fans who don't want to move.

Re: New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 9:16 am  

Well Bradford City don't own VP as far as I know. It's still owned by the Flamingo Land Pension Fund.

But again, that could help move both sets of owners together for a development that is at a third location rather than at either Odsal or VP

[Bullseye]

Re: New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 9:19 am  

As Bulliac says do the fans of either club actually want to move?

Personally I'm not bothered since I think playing in modern stadium is so crucial to the club it overides any sentimental attachment to Odsal. However a lot of Bulls fans won't go to VP.

A lot of City fans are emotionally attached to VP for very obvious reasons too.

Re: New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 9:22 am  

Bulliac wrote:

Not sure it was ever 'the owners', other than fro financial reasons.

It's the fans who don't want to move.

Whereas it's the fans that don't want to move it's the owners that make the decision. There doesn't seem to have been fans of any club that have wanted to move to a new club, but for the previous owners there were reasons why they did not want to move. I think the dynamic at VP will now have more affect on our future.

Re: New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 10:23 am  

Bullseye wrote:

A lot of City fans are emotionally attached to VP for very obvious reasons too.

This is an oft-risen point and one that I have never fully understood TBH. I have friends who are season ticket holders at VP and I have attended games with them before and I would never want to knowingly be disrespectful of their views but I just cannot get my head round this.

My take on it is clear. If I had lost a family member(s) or a friend at a game in the way that fans of the Bantams did, I do not think that I could handle going week-in and week-out to the scene of the event. I just think that it would further my hurt and sadness at the events that unfolded that day.

Still, I cannot fully understand because it has never (thankfully) happened to any of my clubs.

Re: New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 10:54 am  

I understand why people get very attached to places, and Odsal is of course the Bulls' "spiritual home". For those who currently follow the club, the more so the longer they have been fans.

My great personal preference would be to find a way for us to stay in the awesome Odsal bowl.

Having said that, many teams move from their "spiritual home". Even in RL, we have "lost" for example Knowsley Road, The Willows, Thrum Hall and The Boulevard. This summer, West Ham are leaving Upton Park. Maybe Cas will no longer be at Wheldon Road, FFS. All these will be a huge wrench and upset for a large number of fans, and by no means just home fans.

But they will get used to it, as Saints fans have done (have had to do), and after a while, the old place is just a nostalgic memory in the minds of veterans. The new generations of fans, of course, have no such attachment and indeed they will naturally form an affinity with the "new" place.

Having said which, if we moved to VP, I wouldn't be going. I went when we had to, but it's all wrong for Rugby League, and it would be a step to far to make a permanent move there. If we have any hope of SL then the thing is, it can't be there. The pitch is way too small and although in the circumstances we got a special dispensation at that time, the ground isn't suitable for a permanent RL SL ground. Of course, we may never get back in SL but what would be the point in moving to a place which wouldn't meet the criteria anyway?

As for a ground-share at some new ground, there's 10,000x less chance of that happening than of us getting promotion this season, so it isn't worth serious consideration.

[Bullseye]

Re: New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 10:56 am  

I guess it's complicated Eddie. Neither of us thankfully haven't been through that kind of experience.

I wouldn't presume to tell anyone who's been through that what they should or shouldn't feel like about moving grounds.

Re: New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 11:24 am  

I was sad to leave Hilton Park having stood on the terrace there since the mid-sixties (not everyday mind ), but LSV is a fantastic facility, there was some initial teething problems as you’d expect but there’s no way I would want to go back to HP now, nor do you hear any Leyther saying anything but good things about LSV.

The bonus of us moving is the makeup of the crowd we have far more females and kids at LSV than were daft enough to brave the elements at HP.

There’s also 3 teams play there regularly ok the 2 football teams are reserves and usually play mid-week, but there has been very little conflict or fixture clashes, guess it comes to good management and communication between all parties.

My view would be if the opportunity to move becomes on option embrace the change and move on.

Re: New Owners : Thu May 26, 2016 11:49 am  

Bullseye wrote:

I wouldn't presume to tell anyone who's been through that what they should or shouldn't feel like about moving grounds.

Oh, absolutely. Agree 100% on that and this is where I am in no way in a position to fairly comment. Just, for me, I would not necessarily see it as something I would enjoy.

The Bantams have the nice memorial down by Centenary Square, and, if they did move, then I am sure that they would replace the Mural that adorns the Main Stand with another permanent tribute to the lost fans.

But I in no way see BCFC leaving VP anyway. They do not have to. In fact, steps are being taken to improve the Stadium (on the inside anyway). The way I see it is that our need is greater than theirs' is, and we would benefit more from moving than City would. We need it more than City do so if we were ever to groundshare then it would have to be at VP or not at all IMO.

The more likely scenario for any sharing has to be with Park Avenue. City and Bulls is a complete non-starter.