The value of the lease can be classed in terms it's sale was the main reason the bank withdraw the overdraft facility which caused the admin in 2012. The lease must also be a sizable asset due to the fact the RFL are unwilling to do any sort of deal on it.

The RFL never said it was fine to sign Harris that's the great urban myth that has cropped up. They said he had no registered contract with Leeds at the time when he signed for us.

Quote redeverready="redeverready"The RFL never said it was fine to sign Harris that's the great urban myth that has cropped up. They said he had no registered contract with Leeds at the time when he signed for us.'" I'd say there's a reasonable base to the Urban Myth though. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 855107.stm "the Rugby Football League has accepted Bradford's move after checking with its lawyers and the Rhinos are now threatening to take the matter further." Reads like, Caisley did the deed, Leeds said 'just a minute..' and the RFL said its ok. After all it's their rules the clubs have to abide by To be fair though, if Caisley wasn't willy waving so much you'd have thought Leeds would have let it go with a s knowing they had Burrow and Maguire up their sleeves and we'd signed a fat, old donkey

Quote redeverready="redeverready"The RFL never said it was fine to sign Harris that's the great urban myth that has cropped up. They said he had no registered contract with Leeds at the time when he signed for us.'" I'd say there's a reasonable base to the Urban Myth though. news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 855107.stm "the Rugby Football League has accepted Bradford's move after checking with its lawyers and the Rhinos are now threatening to take the matter further." Reads like, Caisley did the deed, Leeds said 'just a minute..' and the RFL said its ok. After all it's their rules the clubs have to abide by To be fair though, if Caisley wasn't willy waving so much you'd have thought Leeds would have let it go with a s knowing they had Burrow and Maguire up their sleeves and we'd signed a fat, old donkey

Firstly May I burst your bubble of indignation over what you think is the justification for our demise!



At the time Hood sold the stadium lease Chris Caisley wasn't at the club and hadn't been for 6 years! Secondly the year of Hoods mis management began in 2010 , I have the comments he made after that years AGM where he states that in 2010 we were showing a loss of £334 k, from the 2009 figure of £78k loss. Turnover had dropped from £4.69m to £3.96 million. Crowds were down to just over 8.5k from approx 12K the year before. So it would be helpful if you have the facts before sounding off (something that many people on here can make their stance from).



On a final barb to your good self can I say that in no business that has had the misfortune to be nearly insolvent and faced with Administration is the situation made worse for the saviours or potential saviours to be in the position of blaming their clients/customers for the demise of the previous business, with punitive penalties heaped on the innocent! Plus when they have no say whatsoever on the chosen New owners, particulary when the choosers of those failed owners blame the client again and again. It's akin to the guilty blaming the innocent.

what's 'rimming' ?

Let's not go there.

what indignation??? are you Chris Caisley by any chance?? If so, why did YOU send us into Admin?????? answers on a postcard



another one that fails to understand cause and effect.



What was the blooming cause?? where did it all start? small clue, not at Red Hall



I'm no fan of Red Hall, Nige and his cronies but way too many people are happy to point the finger at them rather than looking closer to home.



Caisley/Hood/Green and others can rot in hell for what they have done to this club. I sincerely hope that none of them step foot in Odsal again, ever

I think when someone comes to write the history of this sorry period they'll come to the conclusion that the RFL and member clubs often compounded the very great failings of successive owners.

No, FA that's not quite the case.



The date you refer to was the date the club had to play at Odsal until to avoid having to return of any of the 'Odsal settlement' money and has nothing to do with any 'covenants' which the council might, or might not, have placed on the ground. The council said at the time of the settlement, that they wanted to retain the ground for sport, so we assume (but don't actually know) that this formed part of the lease contract. However, this wouldn't be a normal type of 'covenant', made by some long gone donor, but simply a council decision, which I'd guess could be just as easily reversed in council.



What stands to reason though, is that, assuming rugby were to go, the council, as owner, would certainly want to be the major beneficiary if any more profitable use is found. Though, by the same token, the RFL would be in a strong position to bargain for their lease. Clearly, unless they came to an agreement or there is some breach of the lease, nothing can happen without the blessing of both parties.

Quite often people run away with their thoughts on this, what they forget is that the council will have to answer to the local taxpayers/population if Odsal/Richard Dunns is ever redeveloped whether it be for Rugby, housing or other.



Too much bull poop is written and then taken as gospel on forums without the required proof, its as if some things suit peoples agendas.....

How does that work in practice then?