Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 32126 Location: The Corridor of Uncertainty
On the subject of upkeep it'd be interesting to know what it's cost us over the past couple of years. In the days of Hood he used to go on about how much the stadium cost in upkeep and how it was a financial millstone. He used to bring it up at every fans forum. Duffy used to go on about how it cost thousands to get a troublesome drain unblocked to further illustrate this point.
Now assuming that all that was correct then I don't expect much to have changed. The only difference is the Rooley Lane end terracing which is now not used. Maintenance of that may have been curtailed which may have reduced costs.
One things for sure, some bits of the stadium do need some work urgently. It's not far of Belle Vue standards in some areas.
If we do ever make it to the middle 8s then we're going to need the Rooley Lane terracing again soon, hope it isn't going to cost much to bring it back into use.
"If you start listening to the fans it won't be long before you're sitting with them," - Wayne Bennett.
Bullseye wrote:On the subject of upkeep it'd be interesting to know what it's cost us over the past couple of years. In the days of Hood he used to go on about how much the stadium cost in upkeep and how it was a financial millstone. He used to bring it up at every fans forum. Duffy used to go on about how it cost thousands to get a troublesome drain unblocked to further illustrate this point.
Now assuming that all that was correct then I don't expect much to have changed. The only difference is the Rooley Lane end terracing which is now not used. Maintenance of that may have been curtailed which may have reduced costs.
One things for sure, some bits of the stadium do need some work urgently. It's not far of Belle Vue standards in some areas.
If we do ever make it to the middle 8s then we're going to need the Rooley Lane terracing again soon, hope it isn't going to cost much to bring it back into use.
Rooley lane gets used once a year for the fire work display and the monster trucks. Surly the only reason they don't open it is to save on steward costs.
Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:I for one can’t wait for chalmers’ column in the t&a this week.
I’m really excited. It’s good to know we’re still a thing in the eyes of top 8 superleague clubs. Even sh17e ones.
would be lovely to see you back in the big league so we can kick your booty and send you back down again for the like of you, grates a bit doesn't pal sweet cheeks indeed
Last edited by snowie on Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bull Mania wrote:Don't think anyone could argue otherwise. The only option is to sell it back to the Bulls, at the price they brought it for.We shouldn't get it at a cut price, and the other club chairman certainly shouldn't get it, as you say it's a conflict of interest. Hudgell in particular isn't exactly fond of us.
I don't buy the part that they see it as an investment, the lease isn't worth much if you don't have the Bulls playing there. The council own the part the money is in, which is the land. What would happen if Hudgell & Carter own it and the Bulls won promotion replacing Hull KR or Wakey (which isn't exactly an impossibility) Do they whack the price up forcing us out of our home to weaken us?
If the RFL want rid of it, tough, they shouldn't have brought it in the first place (it was a disgrace they did) They're not losing money on it as we pay for all the maintenance etc.
snowie wrote:would be lovely to see you back in the big league so we can kick your booty and send you back down again for the like of you, grates a bit doesn't pal sweet cheeks indeed
What a wonderful contribution to this discussion. You must be extremely proud of yourself. Well done, are you walking about with a smug grin on your face today
Joined: Mar 04 2005 Posts: 5880 Location: Bradford
Bulliac wrote:The RFL have the Head lease, we have a sub lease - if we were simply 'tenants' we wouldn't have the responsibility of repairs to the stadium, which we do, as it part of our lease agreement.
Have you seen our lease agreement? I haven't, so I couldn't possibly say what we are or aren't entitled to pay.
If you're right and the upkeep of the stadium is 100% our responsibility then again we come back to the ongoing puzzle of just how in the hell we are managing to survive in this division paying all of these outgoings?
Joined: Mar 01 2002 Posts: 10969 Location: Bradbados
Nothus wrote:Have you seen our lease agreement? I haven't, so I couldn't possibly say what we are or aren't entitled to pay.
If you're right and the upkeep of the stadium is 100% our responsibility then again we come back to the ongoing puzzle of just how in the hell we are managing to survive in this division paying all of these outgoings?
I haven't seen any agreements (as I'm sure you well know , but I do attend most of the forums and listen to what is said. All of the things I've said have been discussed at some level, at the forums, though it should be said that Chalmers is much more 'cagey' than previous recent owners, though they did say that the terms were the same as before, which is why I believe we still have the same sub-lease, plus I've not heard anyone, other than in this thread, suggest otherwise.
There is an ongoing rumour that we've been 'let off' the annual payments by the RFL, which may or may not be true, and that may be part of the reason we seem able 'to survive', though going largely part time and still getting decent crowds through the gate is undoubtedly playing its part. I don't know if the deferred payment (if indeed it exists) is just scrubbed out or if it is be added to our later payments. It shouldn't be forgotten either that repairs are only costly when work is actually done, and that many things in a large sports ground can be deferred for some time before they become critical (ie affect the licence) so that could be another reason. Eg, the last time we used the floodlights there were more lights out than in, IIRC.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. Mark Twain
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
The original Underlease which was part of the "circling predators" deal will have been with BB Holdings Ltd as it was at the end of 2011. You might assume that the present Underlease is either an assignment of that or else a carbon copy but I don't think we have ever been told.
That Underlease was for 30 years so to the end of 2041. (The Head Lease has a way to go, until 2152). It could be terminated if RFL wanted to redevelop or for reconstruction. Also we could be given notice to move to suitable alternative or shared accommodation.
It was widely whispered that we were being let off some of the payments due but I've not seen any evidence of this so can't venture an opinion. What seems likely therefore (assuming we lease on same terms as BBHL) is we're good until 2041 unless reconstruction (the chances of which I'd put at zero) or agree to a ground share (only VP would fit the bill and you can guess at the chances of that happening equally as well as can I)
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Chalmers hasn’t disappointed ha ha. I mean personally if hudgell and carter want to act like this it might be better to keep a dignified silence. Or call carter’s bluff as he hasn’t got the means to buy odsal. Let them show themselves up. But I’m glad Chalmers isn’t a push over and isn’t afraid to give the clowns what for. Are they really that desperate or insecure that they have to pick fights with a league one club to deflect attention from their own failings?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
, but I do attend most of the forums and listen to what is said. All of the things I've said have been discussed at some level, at the forums, though it should be said that Chalmers is much more 'cagey' than previous recent owners, though they did say that the terms were the same as before, which is why I believe we still have the same sub-lease, plus I've not heard anyone, other than in this thread, suggest otherwise. 
