Until 31 May 2019 the tenant has to use the playing surface for first team rugby football.



The RFL would be in breach of that, as they don't do any such thing. Their subtenants may do but the RFL don't. So the Council must have consented to a sublease which contained the same proviso (at least).



After the cutoff date, however, the RFL (subject to the rights of occupation of their tenants), and the Bulls (subject to the terms of their sub-lease) can do whatever they want on the land as long as they have planning permission.



I can't remember who'd be responsible for the grant or not of planning permission. Oh, hang on ...



The main Lease runs till 8 Oct 2152, so maybe another 50 - 75 administrations/liquidations going forward.

retail without it impinging, in any way, on the stadium. That scenario is a far cry from selling it off and moving out.



As I said earlier though, there have been so many changes in companies and then the selling of the lease, so it's impossible to say just what the current lease lays down. Other than the club is still responsible to pay for maintenance and the need for some kind of financial input is just as necessary now as it was then.

Isn't that because the RFL stepped in and bought all the intellectual property relating to the Bulls with the intention of selling it to the new company for the same price as they bought it

Are you confusing lease and sublease?



Don't think anyone has put up a copy of the new Bulls' sublease, so we only have the few sketchy details from reports (and the rumours that we have a 3 year rent holiday etc) but the original lease (which is currently held by RFL) remains just the same as ever it was.

Or they could do what they want & hope the Council don't notice? Which technically is not a breach.....

Which, along with the fact that the club were still responsible for all 'upkeep', is what Peter Hood confirmed to a fans forum, quite a few years back.



I've no actual reason to think anything has changed, though I thought it was certainly[i a possibility[/i that something might have changed in all the comings and goings.

The point is something may well have changed, if the rumours are true that the RFL have given us a 3 year rent holiday, and they are paying maintenance for the same period. That would be worth an awful lot of money and more than set-off the reduced distribution. (But the change would be the arrangements between lessee (RFL) and sub-lessee (us) and not affecting the Head Lease.

RFL's pets.

it will cost considerably less. I'd guess it will be purely essential safety work that's not covered on the insurance.

Surely maintenance and upkeep is the responsiblty of the primary lessee...

What's stopping them passing it on in the sub-lease? In theory it just affects the rent.

Not now.

It was the responsibility of the primary lessee when we were that, but when we sold the lease we kept the responsibility.

Apparently the RFL are taking it on for 3 seasons, as well as reducing the rent,but it comes back to us, as under the original terms after that. 6