Indeed. For what it's worth, having lived in London for five years I can tell you that most people even vaguely interested in sport know that the rugby team in Bradford is callled the Bulls, and further more is about the only thing they know that the city has going for it other than curry. Chomp chomp chomp.

In six years in Manchester my Bulls shirt (now burnt) was only ever identified by people who thought it was a basketball or ice hockey team.

Maybe when half the BBC staff decamp from London the recognition rate will improve.

Not quite how it happened. But you are right - the council won't do that again. Did City flog their ground for a good price or was it to avoid foreclosure on a loan?







OSV will only work if they are one of many beneficiaries - most unblinkered people recognise that.







I thought TV rights at premiership level were a minimum of £20m+ per year as well as a parachute payment. Was that not enough?







Did City not try that success thing a few years back? Different people at the helm of course. How did that turn out?

Long term, quite well if harnessed properly, after all it has led to a position where, despite being in the bottom tier of professional football, a higher average attendance than the top flight RL counterparts is still achieved.

I am a Bradfordian, living in Wibsey and working locally too. I followed NOrthern /Bulls home and away between 1990 and last year, and was a season ticket holder pre 1990 at City. I am now a City season ticket holder again. I was at Valley Parade as an 8 year old on May 11th 1985, and I hold both teams in high esteem.

the current talk is just that. City's former chairman bought VP for 2.5million when the club first went into admin. It was financed by the pension funds of the company he owns, flamingo land and Pleasure island! Now City pay 1m per year in rent, and the current Chairmen want to buy the stadium back for the club. Gordon Gibb will not entertain selling it, or even negotiating about it as he is on a big earner (5years @1m=5m, when he paid 2.5m for it). this talk from mark lawn is simply to try and make him come to the table.

Also, it helps the bulls get wider support for the OSV project.



I have fallen out of love a little with the BUlls over recent years. I dont regard myself as a glory supporter, but I just felt that my hard earned money was being misspent, so I dont go as much. at the same time City offered cheap season tickets and my sons wanted to go see football. They ahd been BUlls fans, and stil are via sky TV, but the costs dont add up. next season, I have got seats for me and my two sons for £99. To sit at Odsal, that would get me 2 matches, not 22!!



I willnot slag BUlls off or city. Too many people have short memories and the histories of both clubs has involved too many financial problems. If the clubs both end up at Odsal, or VP or if they stay separate then as a city they need to exist.

Bradford needs successful sporting role models. if the healthy living, active lifestyle is to be promoted then Bulls and City are key. If that means city leaving VP, then so be it. the anger should be directed at Gordon Gibb, not Bulls fans. Likewise, if Bulls leave Odsal, Hood is not to blame, Caisley is. He was on a good thing with the council and now the operating costs of the whole at the top of manchester road are crippling the clubs on field development!



neither City or BUlls will do anything to deliberately jeopardise their club. the opposite is true, they are doing this to survive.



COYB

CTID

I'm not sure Caisley had much option over Odsal when he was in charge. The council were clearly desperate to end the 1986 agreement as it was costing them a fortune. It was Hobson's choice. Either move back to Odsal and have the money to make some improvements and gamble on the Tesco groundshare coming through or move in at VP where the club had been losing money and fans.

City's attendances are inflated by their season ticket deal which is a bargain for their fans. However, given that the club can't afford to pay £1m rent a year do you think this will affect that deal? Can the club continue to offer such value for money?



If they can't I bet City's attendances would look quite a bit lower than they are now and probably slip below the level at the Bulls.

The rent (currently) is around £350k a year, the £1m figure that has suddenly started to be banded around includes all overheads (bills etc) which, until recently, the club has publicised was all taken care of by renting out office space in the business centre etc.



As I said above this all reeks of posturing to put some pressure on Gibb because the rent figure is up for negotiation, I don't think he is doing anything wrong to be fair.



As a comparison Huddersfield Town paid around £650k rent to play in the Galpharm a couple of years ago, this may have included everything in terms of overheads (I'm not sure on that), but City certainly wouldn't be able to save a million a year by leaving VP, not to mention the penalty clauses that would be payable.

A football team i can understand but this would be innovative to say the least

They could have a special area on the goalline for people that had scored three tries or less (and yes I know it should be fewer)