well thats good at least it will stop you spouting your crap on here

hmmmmm. Tenant with a poor credit rating and an abysmal record for repaying loans, threatens to default on his current lease......



Yes, prospective Landlords will be falling over themselves in the rush to get his signature on a new contract!



PS Good win for you last night

For once I agree with you!



We can all see what CC is trying to do but ATEOTD he'll need a strong ST sale and cant see him getting that at VP!

Hmmmm.



The RFL only have an 'asset' in the form of Odsal if others deem it to have value. If we were to move out, they have a gigantic white elephant fraught with problems for developers, should that be their preferred course of action.



There is however an assumption that the RFL have done us wrong, when in actual fact, perhaps it is us who have treated them with a little disdain. For a start, they didn't have to purchase any lease from us. That said, discussions with them regarding more favourable terms don't necessarily need to involve bullet firing and threats; just simple dialogue. I'm certainly no fan of Valley Parade, but whatever gets the boat sailing.

Can you actually threaten to walk out on a contract and move to another pitch whose dimensions don't meet the minimum size requirements and be taken seriously?

This is the RFL, so yes





The governing body won't risk losing a club of our stature for the sake of 4 metres; notwithstanding the fact that it was good enough for two seasons under their stewardship.

But not if you've done the dirty on them when they were trying to help you out.

If its true it seems a high risk or at least an incredibly arrogant move from Caisley.

The RFL have come under a lot of stick from fans of other clubs over their supposedly favourable treatment of Bradford. It may well be that they can objectively justify the actions that they took over the lease. But the perception remains that they have bent over backwards to help the club.



They will be acutely aware that any further action to help the club will be subject to critical scrutiny. There must be a limit to how far they can be pushed.

Caisley has backed himself and the Club into a corner, he jumped the gun again just like he did with Harris, there won't be a satisfactory outcome while he is still a shareholder!

Pretty much agree with that. I think using 'asset' in inverted commas is correct as the value of the Odsal lease would diminish to little more than nothing without a major league team playing there.



The major obstruction to the VP solution, as I see it, remains the money that would have to be repaid to the council under the Odsal settlement. Not to mention the bad will between council and club if admin was used as a means to avoid payment. If making the payment meant the death of the club it is possible the council may take the political expedient of not enforcing it of course - though that certainly won't go down well in some parts of the district.



As for VP, I've said a few times it's not my favourite stadium for a few reasons and that it's far from ideal for RL; the solid boundary walls are far too close to the lines for rugby imo, and constitute a real danger to players. That said, IIRC, there is no actual minimum size written into the laws of the game, only that 100metres is the desired length and if that's not obtainable then [ias near as possible [/i, which gives plenty of leeway. If push comes to shove I'd go with GB and say, whatever gets the boat sailing. Though my gut feeling is that financially it won't work.

Wasn't the original story that there were predatory forces at work trying to obtain Odsal and that is why the RFL bailed us out. If Caisley walks out then that gives the RFL the chance to make a financial killing without being seen to be giving us the shaft.

Considering you got a franchise when you were on the edge of the abyss I'd suggest you keep the RFL as friends. That "special relationship" saved you. You could be with Crusaders now.