Maybe it's because Leeds was under Labour control during the late '80s when the Urban Development Corporations came in and Bradford was under Conservative control. Where as, at the time, I would think the areas such as Sheffield, Teesside and Manchester were solid Labour country and maybe the Govt saw urban Development Corps as a way to try and get Labour out of dominating local government in these areas.



As said though, Leeds still has significant areas of deprivation and Urban Development Corporations only served to widen the gap between the have's and have not's in these cities.



I'm too young to remember, but I imagine the river front area of Leeds, where most the Urban Dev Corp money was focused, was pretty grim in the 1980s and was seen to have massive potential - where as the opportunities in Bradford may have been more limited.

We got planning permission for the Superdome though at least!



Found these architect's drawings on the planning public access site: [urlhttp://bit.ly/gTCf8z[/url



Nowt like a bit of Wednesday night planning geekery.

So you don't remember (for example) what used to be a very big engineering base in Bradford then? Like International Harvesters and GEC?



Bradford was no more a one trick pony with the Wool industry than Leeds was with the ready-made clothing industry. Both lost their key industry. And both lost most of their engineering industry (examples like GKN's Kirkstall Forge spring to mind).



The difference is that Leeds replaced what it lost, and more, with banking, financial services, legal and a host of other office-based service jobs. And of course the NHS HQ.



Bulliac is spot on IMO about the impact of granting Development Area status to Leeds in the 1980s. At the time, Leeds was a run-down dump in many areas not leas the city centre. When I first came to Leeds, in 1977, you went to Bradford to do your shopping. The development area status, and other initiatives, significantly contributed to the dramatic transformation and now look what happened.



Other factors at play too, including Leeds already being the regional transport hub and local demographics, but there can be no doubt that government policy in the 1980s and beyond made a major contribution. Leeds owes a huge debt to Thatcher; Bradford most certainly does not.



But the joke was actually on the Thatcher administration: they thought that by pumping money into Leeds from central government rather than through the (labour) local authority, they would end up with a load of grateful local people who would change their political allegiance as a result. Yet in the event it seemed to me most folk gave the credit mainly to the council and did not fully appreciate the role of central government. As a result, a policy that I reckon was aimed at least in part at winning over labour voters instead just further entrenched the labour council and local MPs. As I saw it, anyway!



Funny old world?



Of course, Leeds Council has to be given credit for a lot of enlightened decisions too (unlike our lot who have always seemed incapable of delivering on anything) - like providing very serious inducements to Harvey Nicks to open a store in Leeds. Why? So the senior guys in Whitehall who needed to be persuaded a move to Leeds could convince their wives that they would not be abandoning civilisation as they knew it because there was even a Harvey Nicks there...I jest not!

Neither Warrington nor St Helens new Tescos could be considered part of the town centre though? Would you go to the Tescos at Warrington as part of the other town centre shops, or would you drive there and park INSTEAD of going to the town centre?

Ditto Saints.

The debate on here is good and well informed. I want to bring it back to Bradford though. For many of the reasons discussed above, Bradford council have proven time after time, nomatter which political party is in control, to be ineffective and short sighted. Dont forget. Our current RL stadium was only rebuilt 26 years ago!!! Obviously the events in the same year at Valley Parade and Heysel, and later at Hillsborough chnaged the way stadiums were designed, so the council cant be totally to blame.



As a Bulls and City season ticket holder, I feel that the idea that Bulls and City fans hate each other is a tad of a generalisation. BUt there is some definite division. Traditionally, the City was a north south split in soccer terms, as City and Park Avenue were at a similar level. Some people crossed the city, but not many. My Grandfather was an Avenuite and it was 15 years between them folding, and him starting to support City, and he loved his footy.

Because of this split there is a view that the more affluent areas to the north of the city provides many of the City fans, and that the majority of BUlls fans are from the city centre and south of it. I, see why people might think this but it cant be that simple can it?



the fact that the council rebuilt Odsal in 84/85, and put a new roof on the main stand in the early 90s makes City fans upset because the council did little or nothing when City almost folded in 1983. The perception is that the football club has to be self sufficient, but the rugby club gets help from public money. this is hard to argue against.



City fans will do anything to stay at VP, but now as both clubs have faced decline in the last 5-10 years, brought about by spending beyond their means, there needs to be some joined up thinking.

To suggest that both clubs have an equal heritage at their respective grounds and both should move is at best insensitive and at worse offensive. The events of 11/5./85 changed that. added to this that VP is in the main a modern stadium, that will be fit for purpose for many years to come is also a factor.



To be very simplistic, the money that the council has squirrelled away for the Odsal redevelopment should be used to create an elite stadium for both City and BUlls at VP. with the two clubs as equal tennants. They should make Odsal a community sports ground, and expand the training ground at Tong to accomodate both clubs (easy to do from August when Yorkshire Martyrs closes for good).



A smiple view for sure. But then again, why does everything have to be so complicated??

There is much to agree with in there Isaac, couple of points though.



I wouldn't use the word 're-built' for what happened in the 80s. What was called the 'old' stand, a wooden structure which had been the first stand built at Odsal, was pulled down and the 'pop' terrace built in its place and the 'new' stand (the current Tetleys) was extended into the paddock which stood in front of it and re-roofed. Incidentally this was done, not for the rugby club, but to secure the World Speedway Championship Final for the city and much of the money involved went into the track and other speedway items, though clearly the rugby club did benefit, even though we were actually left with one fewer stand.



You say the council did nothing for city to help in their financial crisis but I'm sure I remember them buying VP (with a same price sell back clause) and later selling it back, which was little more than a pretty large interest free loan.

I understand fully that the improvements to Odsal were for the speedway, I until the Dukes were shafted in 1997 I followed them all over!!! The point you make is valid, and highlights one of the things that some City fans hate. the fact that we as bulls fans dont acknowledge how lucky we were, and make out that we either didnt want the improvements, or didnt need it.



One thing is for sure. the status quo cannot be maintained regarding stadia in Bradford, as pretty soon one or both clubs could face oblivion via relegation!

Din't the council sponnsor City some time back when the had the Mythbreaker logo on the shirts? I'm not nit picking but City has had help over the year but nows the time for a joined up sport policy that works for everyone.

Interesting and informed debate on this thread.

I suppose it had to happen on RAB eventually...

That's absolutely true. Something HAS to happen with the Bulls or we'll potentially lose our spot in SL, though I'm nor sure just what, though I notice the club, outwardly at least, seem still confident, in [isomething[/i happening on the sports village front.



As for City, I can't really say, though I hope they don't get relegated. It would appear though that the cost of hiring the stadium from Mr Gibb is a big part of the reason for their financial problems and lack of recruitment. I've got to say the longer the village project stutters along the more a link up seems likely.



Incidentally, you say City fans don't like us 'pretending' we didn't want the improvements but, speaking as someone who was a speedway fan from the days at the Shay, I have to say that the vast majority of Bulls' fans would have much preferred the track to disappear and the money spent elsewhere ( I know it's daft, and the money wouldn't have been available but for the speedway final, but that's fans for you) and - not forgetting that it left us with one fewer stand - it's not really surprising that some would feel that way.

what always strikes me when this topic comes up is that there was never any mention of a groundshare at VP from the city side until the 15 million the council earmarked for the OSV became public knowledge. Ever since they've been making noises about a groundshare (as long as its at THEIR ground and not odsal or a new neutral ground of course). Seems to me they just see it as an opportunity to get their ground bought back for them and get them out of the crippling rent agreement they got themselves into.



theres two issues that concern me. First the blatant disinformation being spread, mainly by the head of their supporters organisation, that the council is giving bulls 15 million. This is NOT the case. The council has explicitly stated the 15 million is for areas of the OSV specifically excluding the actual stadium itself which the bulls and private partners have always been expected to fund themselves. The 15 million is for the infrastructure and other facilities (repacement for richard dunn, all weather pitches etc). Secondly what would happen a couple of years down the line if the premiership brought in the ruling they keep threatening about premiership clubs not being allowed to groundshare. Unlikely though it is at the moment, If city were ever in a position where a return to the premiership was a possibility would they expect us to do one?

Quote Duckman="Duckman"It does [imostly [/iand I can't remember the exact details at the moment but IIRC the pitch at VP is not big enough at the moment, with the concrete hoardings being too close to the in goal areas. I think any permanent move would need work to increase the pitch size. I think the rfl were fine with it last time on a temp basis but it would require work for a permanent move. #edit# found my previous links; www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... rt%201.pdf www.bradfordcityfc.co.uk/page/Co ... 66,00.html The pitch size at VP is 103m x 64m. According to the RFL rules pitches need to be a minimum length of 88m goal line to goal line, 2 in goal areas of minimum 6m and 3m clearence behind the dead ball line (2m in exceptional circumstances with padding, but this is not a long term solution IMO) which gives an absolute minimum length of space needed of 106m. I don't know exactly where the VP measurement is taken from, but its clear to me the pitch as it is at VP is not long enough. Didn'y someone at City float the idea of removing some of the front rows of the seating to accomodate a bigger pitch if we groundshare?'" Take a look at the pitch dimensions of Olt Trafford. 105m. Anyway, if that idea was used about a 3 way ownership, that would be the best thing for the teams and the city IMO. The pitch could be extented although this could mean taking away a couple of rows of seats maybe. Not a problem with the capacity at 25k. It would be a fantastic RL stadium when full though!

Quote Duckman="Duckman"It does [imostly [/iand I can't remember the exact details at the moment but IIRC the pitch at VP is not big enough at the moment, with the concrete hoardings being too close to the in goal areas. I think any permanent move would need work to increase the pitch size. I think the rfl were fine with it last time on a temp basis but it would require work for a permanent move. #edit# found my previous links; www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/ ... rt%201.pdf www.bradfordcityfc.co.uk/page/Co ... 66,00.html The pitch size at VP is 103m x 64m. According to the RFL rules pitches need to be a minimum length of 88m goal line to goal line, 2 in goal areas of minimum 6m and 3m clearence behind the dead ball line (2m in exceptional circumstances with padding, but this is not a long term solution IMO) which gives an absolute minimum length of space needed of 106m. I don't know exactly where the VP measurement is taken from, but its clear to me the pitch as it is at VP is not long enough. Didn'y someone at City float the idea of removing some of the front rows of the seating to accomodate a bigger pitch if we groundshare?'" Take a look at the pitch dimensions of Olt Trafford. 105m. Anyway, if that idea was used about a 3 way ownership, that would be the best thing for the teams and the city IMO. The pitch could be extented although this could mean taking away a couple of rows of seats maybe. Not a problem with the capacity at 25k. It would be a fantastic RL stadium when full though!