Odsal and VP have the same capacity, besides if we were to share personally I would tear down the TL Dallas stand and the stand which says BANTAMS and I would make them into standing terreces.

when did football league start allowing standing terraces again? thought they were only permitted in the bottom end conferences.

Nevermind then forgot about that rule!!! But Rugby League is better when your stood !

agree with that entirely. purely personal preference but numbers stood on pop side compared to sat in stand tends to indicate majority of fans think same too. Went to every game at VP last time we were there and hated having to sit, combined with constant up and down as people went to loo/bars etc. On a standing terrace people can find a way through without disrupting everyone else. If they could find a way to incorporate a standing terrace for 3-4k fans at VP (maybe just keep it ssut for football fixtures?) then I'd be a lot less opposed to a move there if there was no possibility of improving odsal.

Agree entirely. However I don't think we should groundshare because the City fans will moan about ruining the pitch. Take 2001 for example, They were in Prem/just relegated, we were SL champions but because they were high up they thought that the Bulls were just messing up pitch week in week out and no possibility of groundshare. Now seen as though City are on the brink of being relegated into Conference they suddenly like the idea of Groundshare.



1. The location of VP is poor, rubbish parking, Manningham Lane would be packed every weekend.

2. Two sides of VP is big the other two are tiny compared.

3. TL Dallas stand looks poor, it makes the stadium look uneven.

4. Why should the Bulls share at VP with City when City arn't doing anything?



I think we should scrap the idea of groundshare at VP, either get the £15 million for OSV and have Park Avenue and City there, or build a Bradford Sports Complex with 25,000 capacity stadium, mixture of Black/Amber/Red and Maroon/Amber-Yellow seats. with 5,000 standing in front of 2 of the stands (like The Willows do). These will be closed on City games. Joint ownership of ground, each have to pay the same amount every month/year. You could even build this 'new' ground where Richard Dunns is. Use Odsal as the training pitch during season.

If thats correct then OT makes the cut, just, minimum with 2m spacing is 104m, my point was about long term where you'd need the 3m spacing for safety week to week giving you a minimum needed of 106m, which VP is not. But either way I'm not sure of the OT dimensions but they do have a full 100m in play for the GF, with in goal areas plus some spacing.



At VP as it is you need a short pitch for rl like we had when we were there, which is far from ideal but as has been said its probably easily fixed by taking out seats if we're joint tennants and isn't a real stumbling block to any move I suspect.



I do agree we need some joined up thinking regarding the long term future of professional sport in Bradford, to aid both clubs but I'm not confident given the track record so far.

from memory the flat pitch at old trafford is 106m. there is then another meter or so which drops at an angle to the hoardings so its actually closer to 108m between hoardings. Its fine for a single game but wouldnt be acceptable week in week out. AFAIK we had a dispensation from RFL to play in the smaller dimensions at VP as it was only supposed to be a temporary 2 year thing while odsal was redeveloped. Dont think they would acept it long term without alterations.

I have to agree with you about the seats.



It wouldn't be home if they we're to remain Maroon & Amber and have Bantams this, Bantams that plastered all over them.



It would have to be a 50/50 split.



A move to Valley Parade will still kill off the club IMO so it's not going to happen.



Just look at what the move did for us in 2001, no away support at all because of the area in which the ground is situated.

That won't be an issue from next season then.

When they first brought that rule in, it was only the Premiership and Championship that had to have all-seaters. That was a while back though and I confess I don't always keep up to date with football rules these days, due to me rapidly diminishing interest in the sport. (Brought about by the seemingly no-end to the constant cheating that goes on).

A few slight impediments to those ideas though:



The "15m for" the OSV was a fraction of the total planned cost, and was NOT for a stadium. The most recent plans did not actually include a physical stadium cost at all IIRC - private capital was required for that I think.



The OSV project requried the Richard Dunn site to be sold for development, the proceeds helping to fund the OSV and especialy the new replacement facilities thereon. No sale of RD, no development at Odsal anyway. If you build a statiumk on the RD site you'd have to sell Odsal for development instead - at much muich higher cost - and still rePlace the RD facilities.



There is no money anywhere to build a stand-alone stadium.

Thats the bit that really bugs me tbh. Alan Carling, the city supporters club chairman, gets articles in t&a repeatedly where he hammers 'fact' that bulls are being given 15 million usually with big headlines too, despite the fact its blatantly untrue and we never as a club seem to correct him on it. think last time he spouted of council actually put a statement out about it but it was given nothing like the coverage that Carlings piece was.