Maybe she'll get back to you when she's got the kids off to school and the brekky things have been washed up, though I doubt if she'll have time to read all of that

You’re absolutely right the RFL shouldn’t have taken on the leasehold if they weren’t prepared to do the work on the ground. Spot on that.

To be fair they foolishly thought they would be getting the sports money back. Taking over the lease was always a red herring to hide the trouble the Bradford club was in. The BS iconic status and predatory developers just insulted us all. It was a bad decision, for the Bulls more then anyone else as it turned out.

They tried to help the Bulls as they'd helped other clubs. Unfortunately the Bulls were beyond saving.

Indeed, but had to take the lease as security when the initial loan was not going to be paid back, and then things got worse when the bank realised its security had been 'sold'.

I think the term the Bulls fans used was 'Hoodwinked'.

I would add Huddersfield to those two as well. Unless it's Saints (at Wigan) or HKR (at Hull) the the atmosphere sometimes resembles a library and it doesn't show up well in televised games. I know these clubs regularly keep various stands closed because it costs more to open and steward them than it's worth. I am unaware as to how Wigan and Huddersfield operate but reading other independent forums i understand Hull FC (as part of their leasing agreement) are given 1500 seats for every game by their Stadium Management Committee whether the seats are filled or empty. This is counted in their 'attendance' figures which inflates their actual attendance figure at every home game.
The above stadiums are fine,( and needed,) for international matches, especially when Australia are in town but soul less for the other 90% of games played there.