The information from the OSV Feasibility Study nevertheless provides more questions than answers about the desirability of current proposals. The cheaper of the two options under consideration is estimated to cost £57m., and involves a renovation of the existing Odsal Stadium. This would not be an all-seater stadium, and so is not suitable for ground-sharing with Bradford City. It is not clear if the Bulls would have to move from Odsal while this renovation took place. The estimated costs of this option have grown by around £12m. over the last year or so. A swimming pool with public access is part of this plan–replacing the facilities at the Richard Dunn Centre–but it is not yet clear what other facilities are going to be made available to the general public in the OSV complex as part of either option.
The more expensive option, costed at no less than £75m., involves a more radical reconstruction of the Odsal site. The bowl of the existing stadium will be used to take land-fill from levelling the rest of the site. A new all-seater stadium with a capacity of 18,000 will be built from scratch, with a playing surface raised 15 metres above the level of the current Odsal pitch. This is apparently the Council Officers’ preferred option going into the meeting on June 2, and it only makes sense on the assumption that Bradford City will move up to Odsal to share the new ground with the Bradford Bulls. The new stadium is however smaller than the existing stadium at Valley Parade, with less than three-quarters of the capacity. The Bulls would also have to move out of Odsal and share the ground with the Bantams at Valley Parade for one or more playing seasons while the new stadium is under construction. The two clubs would then move up to Odsal together, leaving behind Valley Parade as a relic.
The only costs that have so far been secured for either option are £19m. from local and regional government sources, including £15m. from Bradford Council and £4m. from Yorkshire Forward, plus an additional undisclosed sum from the Bradford Bulls. This means that only about a third of the funding for the cheaper option, and about a quarter for the more expensive option has been secured so far, so there are very large question marks still hanging over the funding for either option–the ‘funding gaps’ are around £38m. and £56m. respectively.
The Council is looking for additional sums of £19m. from commercial and retail participation, £15m. from local public sector partners–including further and higher education and the NHS–in addition to the contribution from the Bulls, and £15m from Europe and from national sports bodies. These figures together total £68m., so that there still appears to be a residual funding gap of £7m. in relation to the more expensive option, even under the most optimistic scenarios regarding these additional sources of funds. This residual gap is to be closed presumably from other sources that are unknown at the present time, or are at least unrevealed in the press report.
The published figures also take no account of the running costs of the new stadium. Is the Council going to continue to offer the Bulls the use of the new facilities at Odsal rent-free? And is it going to offer Bradford City a similar arrangement if there is ground-sharing at Odsal? These decisions will have major implications for the public finances over the lifetime of the stadium, quite apart from its construction costs. So the overall costs of the two options going forward are likely to be well in excess of £57m. and £75m. respectively, even if no account is taken of the general tendency for the costs of such projects to grow as they move towards completion.
The uncertainties of funding also create a real dilemma, especially in the current economic climate. If the implementation of plans is held back until all the funding is secured, there may be a very long wait indeed for the new Odsal stadium; but if the plans are implemented to a swifter timetable (which the urgency of the Bulls’ current predicament may require), there is a real danger of leaving both clubs in limbo at Valley Parade, waiting for the new facilities at Odsal to materialise. There is the example of Broadway before us in this respect, and Speedway was lost to Bradford through a similar process in the past. Can we risk a repeat of these experiences with the District’s remaining full-time professional sport?
But the main question mark over the OSV proposal is whether it is justified to use such enormous sums of public money–including much of the windfall from the sale of Leeds-Bradford Airport–to re-house the Bradford Bulls, when a much more certain alternative exists that would achieve the same result at a small fraction of the cost. Ground-sharing between the Bantams and the Bulls at Valley Parade–including the purchase of the stadium from the Gibb Pension Fund, and relatively minor building improvements–could probably be achieved for as little as £5m. That is to say, the major objective of the OSV project could probably be realised for less than 7% of the full cost of the most expensive proposal. Looking at the figures another way, ground-sharing at Valley Parade could be achieved almost four times over from the public funding that is already secured for the OSV project. This would leave almost £15m. of the current OSV funding available for other projects in the District–Broadway and the Odeon spring to mind, in addition to the non-footballing elements of the OSV plans, such as the new swimming pool.
And the contribution from the public purse to ground-sharing at Valley Parade might well be less than £5m., first because the overall costs could turn out to be lower than £5m., and second because other sources of funding could be sought, either from fans of the two clubs or from the range of public and private sources that have been cultivated already in relation to the OSV project. It is not possible to replicate the OSV project in its entirety at Valley Parade, of course, since the requisite space does not exist in the vicinity of the stadium, but there is plenty of scope for other links related to policy agendas for sport, education and health.
Three main points emerge from the considerations above.
First, it would be very helpful if the Council published the full Feasibility Study before the Executive Meeting on June 2. This might help to resolve a number of the unanswered questions about the OSV project, and it would in any case give council tax-payers the necessary information about the decisions that will be taken on their behalf, and using their money.
Second, it would in the Trust’s view be reckless for councillors to take any decision on the two published options for the Bulls without taking account of the third option–ground-sharing at Valley Parade. This is because it would constitute a misuse of public funds–running into millions–to develop Odsal in order to re-house the Bradford Bulls when the same objective could be achieved in other ways at a fraction of the cost to the public purse. We ask therefore that the scope of the Feasibility Study be extended to cover the third option, so that its financial merits may be assessed directly. It would also seem to constitute a misuse of public funds for Bradford Council to decide on June 2nd to employ consultants to pursue either of the first two options before the proper evaluation of this third option has taken place.
Third, while it is Bradford’s Council tax-payers as a whole who will meet the local authority’s bill for re-housing the Bulls, it is the fans of the two clubs who will be most radically affected by the outcome, especially if the eventual solution involves ground-sharing at either Odsal or Valley Parade. The long-run viability of any proposal also depends on these fans, through their continuing financial support of their respective clubs. BCST therefore calls on the Council to involve supporters of both clubs directly in any further discussions on the future of full-time professional sport in the District.