Board index ‹ Super League ‹ Bradford Bulls - RedAmberandBlack.net ‹ Caisley playing hard ball with RFL

guess who wrote:

If this is true, how will it help.

None of the Bulls fans will go there will they?

None - definition: "not any".

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure there were one or two other people sitting near me the last time we regularly played home fixtures down there.

Adeybull wrote:

Any a merry Christmas to you too, you sad obsessed individual.

One line from his diatribe suggests he might be a malcontent Lawkholme laner, seems to be the usual sort of rhetoric..

The RFL certainly has shown preference to clubs in the past - London and Crusader that we know about - and I think what they have done with the advances and ground purchase must be close to what they are allowed to do for a particular club.
But even if the Bulls have contrived to get themselves into bad position with the new lease is the best way to agree more manageable terms to go public in this way with the body which will be making the franchise allocations in the next few years?
Even in this 24 hour sound bite culture we live in there is still a lot to be said for quiet diplomacy.

Not surprised, or even find much wrong, about the RFL helping 'development area' clubs, but the Bulls aren't in that category, so it doesn't really make a precedent imo. That doesn't mean they should be awkward with clubs though. The trouble is that this kind of statement is just the sort of thing which elicits a response, and then we get into another slanging match; as if we haven't enough bad publicity with the shareholders doing their dirty washing in public.

Of course, I did ask the OP for a link to this story and as yet, zippo! Which maybe tells us all we need to know? If there is any truth in it then it should probably have been picked by the news organisations by now.

[quote="666"]What 'sympathy' from what Cubs?

I have none.
That said, if they do, then the RFL should be denied any taxpayers funding in future for whatever purpose and I will make it my sole purpose in life to ensure that they are![/quote]

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

BillyRhino wrote:

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?

rugbyreddog wrote:

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.