373 replies to this topic

[Segovia Carpet]

From The Advertiser :-

MORE than £10m of taxpayers' cash will be spent on building a new stadium for Salford City Reds.

Salford council will borrow £10m with the remainder of the £20m cost to build the stadium expected to come from joint landowners Peel Holdings.

It is understood Peel may apply for a grant from the North West Development Agency to cover their part of the scheme.

A joint venture company will be set up by Peel Holdings and the council to build and manage the 15,000 capacity stadium.

The council and Peel each own different parts of the 98-acres of land at Barton where the stadium will be built.

It is hoped it will be ready by 2012 and talks have taken place with Sale Sharks about the possibility of them sharing the ground with the Reds.

Manchester United's reserves or youth teams could also be invited to play there.

Secret negotiations

The deal follows months of secret negotiations after the stadium plans hit a crisis last year and is likely to be approved by the council's ruling cabinet on Tuesday.

The stadium will have community sports pitches and facilities next to it.

Once the stadium is built a non-food retail park will be built nearby, which the council will lease out to raise cash to pay back the money it intends to borrow.

The stadium will have facilities for corporate entertainment and catering and could also be used for pop concerts.

Peel, owners of the nearby Trafford Centre, are expected to apply to the NWDA – a government-funded body which distributes money for regeneration – for a substantial grant for the stadium.

It is vital the Reds leave their existing ground, The Willows, in Weaste, as it does not meet the standards required by the Rugby Football League for Super League.

Without a new stadium they will not secure Super League franchise status.

It is also required to potentially increase income in order to attract players of the calibre that will enable the club to flourish in Super League.

Salford council leader John Merry and his deputy David Lancaster have been involved in brokering the deal.

Confident

They have spoken to the Rugby Football League and are confident that the stadium will be ready in February 2012 in time for the start of that year's season.

The Reds, along with other clubs must submit an application for Super League franchise status by February 2010. The club's current contract expires at the end of the 2011 season.

Leader of Salford council John Merry said: "All parties are united in their desire to see the Super League franchise stay in the city. We are investigating every option and hope to chart the way forward soon."

Peel Holdings Director Mike Butterworth said: “We have an understanding with the council that we do not wish to comment at this stage. If I did I would be in breach of that. At the appropriate time we will say something together.”

A spokeswoman for Salford City Reds declined to comment.

[Maximus Decimus]

From The Advertiser :-

MORE than £10m of taxpayers' cash will be spent on building a new stadium for Salford City Reds.

Salford council will borrow £10m with the remainder of the £20m cost to build the stadium expected to come from joint landowners Peel Holdings.

It is understood Peel may apply for a grant from the North West Development Agency to cover their part of the scheme.

A joint venture company will be set up by Peel Holdings and the council to build and manage the 15,000 capacity stadium.

The council and Peel each own different parts of the 98-acres of land at Barton where the stadium will be built.

It is hoped it will be ready by 2012 and talks have taken place with Sale Sharks about the possibility of them sharing the ground with the Reds.

Manchester United's reserves or youth teams could also be invited to play there.

Secret negotiations

The deal follows months of secret negotiations after the stadium plans hit a crisis last year and is likely to be approved by the council's ruling cabinet on Tuesday.

The stadium will have community sports pitches and facilities next to it.

Once the stadium is built a non-food retail park will be built nearby, which the council will lease out to raise cash to pay back the money it intends to borrow.

The stadium will have facilities for corporate entertainment and catering and could also be used for pop concerts.

Peel, owners of the nearby Trafford Centre, are expected to apply to the NWDA – a government-funded body which distributes money for regeneration – for a substantial grant for the stadium.

It is vital the Reds leave their existing ground, The Willows, in Weaste, as it does not meet the standards required by the Rugby Football League for Super League.

Without a new stadium they will not secure Super League franchise status.

It is also required to potentially increase income in order to attract players of the calibre that will enable the club to flourish in Super League.

Salford council leader John Merry and his deputy David Lancaster have been involved in brokering the deal.

Confident

They have spoken to the Rugby Football League and are confident that the stadium will be ready in February 2012 in time for the start of that year's season.

The Reds, along with other clubs must submit an application for Super League franchise status by February 2010. The club's current contract expires at the end of the 2011 season.

Leader of Salford council John Merry said: "All parties are united in their desire to see the Super League franchise stay in the city. We are investigating every option and hope to chart the way forward soon."

Peel Holdings Director Mike Butterworth said: “We have an understanding with the council that we do not wish to comment at this stage. If I did I would be in breach of that. At the appropriate time we will say something together.”

A spokeswoman for Salford City Reds declined to comment.

Most people would accept that Salford were given a license largely for the reason that a new stadium was on the way.

This is the first confirmation that it will not be ready until the next round of franchising. I'm not trying to say that they should not have been given a license (over Widnes for instance) but this means that their main plus point didn't come true.

This leaves the RFL once again with an interesting dilemma. Realistically Salford's bid without the stadium is (at this present moment) looking fairly weak but they will have a much stronger bid with the stadium should it be built in 2012. The RFL will be in exactly the same situation they were in in 2008 but it may be a lot more difficult to feasibly give Salford a franchise. Will their bid be judged on an unfinished stadium?

Personally I think only if it has been started to be built can it be in any way included as part of a franchise application. This needs to the lesson of 2008.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

First time I've seen the council mentioned.

Thought Peel were building it for them.

[Maximus Decimus]

Most people would accept that Salford were given a license largely for the reason that a new stadium was on the way.

This is the first confirmation that it will not be ready until the next round of franchising. I'm not trying to say that they should not have been given a license (over Widnes for instance) but this means that their main plus point didn't come true.

This leaves the RFL once again with an interesting dilemma. Realistically Salford's bid without the stadium is (at this present moment) looking fairly weak but they will have a much stronger bid with the stadium should it be built in 2012. The RFL will be in exactly the same situation they were in in 2008 but it may be a lot more difficult to feasibly give Salford a franchise. Will their bid be judged on an unfinished stadium?

Personally I think only if it has been started to be built can it be in any way included as part of a franchise application. This needs to the lesson of 2008.

Just to reiterate my point I found this,

http://news.bbc.co.u...gue/1083348.stm

Salford are set to leave the Willows to move to a new ground in 2003.
The club announced they are close to finalising plans for a new 20,000-seater stadium opposite Barton Aerodrome.

[ParisSurtout]

What a pity that Salford have lowered expectations of crowd support by reducing planned capacity from 20,000 to 15,000. I now wonder if it will be such a gleaming attractive construction that earlier models portrayed it as?

I hope that the Salford club and council have the brains and resources to specify a design that will enable capacity upgrade in the future if demand should increase. Melbourne Storm's new stadium has that option (to go from 31,000 to 39,000) for the future, because the Melbourne Victory soccer club demanded it.

[jonny]

It seems to have shrunk . 15 000 capacity.I thought it was to be 20 000. Will it be the origional design .?

[chrisl1]

Presumably playing in a new stadium was part of Salford's business plan submitted with and forming part of their application for a Super League licence. Yet if we accept the time scale apparently now given the new stadium will be provided outside the current licence period. Therefore the business plan will never have been implemented within this period.

[ParisSurtout]

Presumably playing in a new stadium was part of Salford's business plan submitted with and forming part of their application for a Super League licence. Yet if we accept the time scale apparently now given the new stadium will be provided outside the current licence period. Therefore the business plan will never have been implemented within this period.

This will be overlooked -- and rightly so -- if land clearing and construction is under way by 2011.

[Viking Warrior]

not that old chestnut again, it's becoming rather boring and repetetive now

[Maximus Decimus]

Presumably playing in a new stadium was part of Salford's business plan submitted with and forming part of their application for a Super League licence. Yet if we accept the time scale apparently now given the new stadium will be provided outside the current licence period. Therefore the business plan will never have been implemented within this period.

The more I think about it the practical side of franchising isn't working. I've always been in favour of it and I still am but there are a couple of things that make me feel uncomfortable.

The problem is with a system where you choose the teams you want rather than teams getting there on merit. At the next round of franchising there looks like there will be (at least) 3 clubs that are not performing well but for whatever reason we do not want to give up on,

Harlequins - geographical outpost that do good junior work. Struggling for crowds as they have done for years.

Crusaders - geographical outpost doing good junior work. Been a bit of a mess since their inclusion.

Salford - last bastion of outskirts of Manchester RL. New stadium means a lot of potential but without it weakest heartland club in SL.

Therefore because we can choose which clubs that we want we are reluctant to let these teams go because of their potential regardless of whether they are fulfilling that potential or not. If all 3 of these clubs were based in say Skelmersdale they would be out like a shot. However because if they did fulfil that potential they would be of more benefit than almost any other club they are persisted with and we are scared of letting them drop down a division in case that potential is lost.

In my opinion this leaves us weaker as a sport because the system isn't being used as it was meant to be but just gets closer to that closed shop by the day. By giving us the option of deciding we can convince ourselves of whatever we want rather than letting it be decided on the pitch.

[Dirk Diggler]

The problem with the licensing system is that it is not what says it is and is not a franchising system it is a typical RL bodge. If the sport decides it actually wants a franchising system then it should kick on and do it, if it wants to run its comp on a facilities and finance basis then so be it. This 'bit of this bit of that with smoke and mirrors thrown in' approach does no one any favours.
It is unlikely that RL will make any progress as a sport when its principle comp has a salary cap 6 times that of its feeder comp. Any attempt at growth is bound to end up in a punt when the haves and the have nots are so far apart.

[Bomb Jack]

If actual building work ( not clearance of the site ) hasn't started when they submit their application in Feb 2010, they should be rejected.


Simples !

Ce message a été modifié par Bomb Jack - 17 décembre 2009 - 10:02 .

[The Future is League]

as it stands today Salford, Wakefield, and Castleford really do need to move quick on new Stadiums, or Stadium redevelopment. these and some other clubs should have had new stadiums years ago.

[Methven Hornet]

A 5000 reduction in capacity is disappointing but as long as the stadium gets started soon then this is good news. What is worrying is that Peel are to apply to NWDA for a grant - how long will that take? what happens if it isn't granted? will the project still go ahead and be completed in time?

I hope everything goes well, though. Are there any piccies?

[East Coast Tiger]

If they're aiming for it to be ready by Feb 2012 we can expect it to be ready by much later. How many developments like this come in one time and on budget?

[Padge]

If they're aiming for it to be ready by Feb 2012 we can expect it to be ready by much later. How many developments like this come in one time and on budget?

Did you post the same on the similar Saints thread the other day they are going to be ready a year earlier and are at a similar stage, save me looking it up, ta.

[Rubber Schnib]

Did you post the same on the similar Saints thread the other day they are going to be ready a year earlier and are at a similar stage, save me looking it up, ta.

Saints' new ground seems to be far in advance of Salford's.

[Padge]

Saints' new ground seems to be far in advance of Salford's.

Not really, neither have a brick laid. Saints have just got the finance sorted this last week, Salford are looking to sort it soon.

Saints have been p!$$ing about with this just as long as other clubs, if not longer, but for some reason people like to believe Saints but presume other clubs are lying.

[Rubber Schnib]

Not really, neither have a brick laid. Saints have just got the finance sorted this last week, Salford are looking to sort it soon.

You really don't see the difference between having the millions required to build a new ground, and looking for the millions to build a new ground?

[Doghead]

From The Advertiser :-

MORE than £10m of taxpayers' cash will be spent on building a new stadium for Salford City Reds.

Salford council will borrow £10m with the remainder of the £20m cost to build the stadium expected to come from joint landowners Peel Holdings.

It is understood Peel may apply for a grant from the North West Development Agency to cover their part of the scheme.

A joint venture company will be set up by Peel Holdings and the council to build and manage the 15,000 capacity stadium.

The council and Peel each own different parts of the 98-acres of land at Barton where the stadium will be built.

It is hoped it will be ready by 2012 and talks have taken place with Sale Sharks about the possibility of them sharing the ground with the Reds.

Manchester United's reserves or youth teams could also be invited to play there.

Secret negotiations

The deal follows months of secret negotiations after the stadium plans hit a crisis last year and is likely to be approved by the council's ruling cabinet on Tuesday.

The stadium will have community sports pitches and facilities next to it.

Once the stadium is built a non-food retail park will be built nearby, which the council will lease out to raise cash to pay back the money it intends to borrow.

The stadium will have facilities for corporate entertainment and catering and could also be used for pop concerts.

Peel, owners of the nearby Trafford Centre, are expected to apply to the NWDA – a government-funded body which distributes money for regeneration – for a substantial grant for the stadium.

It is vital the Reds leave their existing ground, The Willows, in Weaste, as it does not meet the standards required by the Rugby Football League for Super League.

Without a new stadium they will not secure Super League franchise status.

It is also required to potentially increase income in order to attract players of the calibre that will enable the club to flourish in Super League.

Salford council leader John Merry and his deputy David Lancaster have been involved in brokering the deal.

Confident

They have spoken to the Rugby Football League and are confident that the stadium will be ready in February 2012 in time for the start of that year's season.

The Reds, along with other clubs must submit an application for Super League franchise status by February 2010. The club's current contract expires at the end of the 2011 season.

Leader of Salford council John Merry said: "All parties are united in their desire to see the Super League franchise stay in the city. We are investigating every option and hope to chart the way forward soon."

Peel Holdings Director Mike Butterworth said: “We have an understanding with the council that we do not wish to comment at this stage. If I did I would be in breach of that. At the appropriate time we will say something together.”

A spokeswoman for Salford City Reds declined to comment.