274 replies to this topic

[Exiled Wiganer]

Salford RL SHOULD be a great success if properly run and with the right investment. The history of Salford RLFC is great, and the sympathetic new market on its doorstep is enormous. Deakin said whilst he was at the Bulls that a SL franchise in the Salford/Manchester region would be his choice of the market with the biggest potential, and I have to agree. Not sure anyone would make a killing, but they have to be a better proposition than Sale RUFC, Newcastle Falcons etc etc who have haemorrhaged a lot more money than Salford since 1995.

Bang on. Deacs knew his onions.

[John Rhino]

Can the Oldham people please start their own thread?

I want to know what is happeneing at Salford.

[JohnM]

Post moved to Oldham topic

Edited by JohnM, 25 October 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

Salford is not a rugby area and never has been really. It doesnt have a strong amateur base it can use to bring in young players, crowds or work to help develop the club and game in the area. Its crowds are small and there never really has been much interest shown in Salford by locals for decades. Salford are just drifting through SL fighting to stay alive-much like a few others sadly. It has had chances to change itself, but has done very badly in promoting itself. I do feel the new Stadium should have been the springboard for Salford to be a top 8 side if not a top 6 one. Becoming a bigger and better club takes a few years, but it needs something to build off. It doesnt just happen. Salford wasted the chance.The New Stadium in a decent area, right next to the motorway and the chance to be "THE" Rugby club of either code in the Manchester area. Instead they have allowed Sale in and for me just simply waited and hoped things would happen. Even if a new consortium take over, its going to take many years to be a decent well run club. Salford has a negative vibe about it and to get rid of that reputation, will not be easy and no doubt will require money, time and patience. Its OK a new consortium coming in, but they have to get Salford to be something different and that is not just going to happen overnight. I dont feel much will change with Salford unless they have somebody who is willing to spend alot of money. A new owner will still have to initially work with small crowds, a club losing money and a negative vibe. And the problems now will be the same for the next few years. Unless the Consortium/Investors are willing to throw hundred of thousands of pounds at Salford, the financial millstone will bring them down once again.

[alan30058]

Sadly even in their heyday of the early 70's when a team of internationals led by David Watkins led the way to Wembley and other finals ,the people of Salford still didn't turn up and 7,000 was an average gate.

[The Parksider]

I don't agree with Parksider's estimate of the level of investment. But really no one knows what losses would need to be endurd and for how long............

Why don't they?

Every season clubs with far bigger crowds and far more juniors making the grade announce big losses. It's quite easy to estimate that by the time Salford are turning out stars (15 years) and getting 10K crowds (10 years?) they'll have had to have "millions and millions of investment"

Agree with that??

[Lobbygobbler]

Sadly even in their heyday of the early 70's when a team of internationals led by David Watkins led the way to Wembley and other finals ,the people of Salford still didn't turn up and 7,000 was an average gate.

An official average gate of 7k was good in the 70s. Just out of interest, what was Wires average gate in the Wembley winning year of 74?

[Mushy]

I would love to see Oldham at the best level for them. I am a broken record but a 2 tier 20 team SL is much the best way to have the best of all possible worlds, with great clubs like Fax and Oldham being in tier 2 until such time as they are strong enough to move up. Let's face it we have an extra division within SL as it is. If we had a 2m cap top tier and a 1m cap second tier, say, with Sky money spread proportionately, we could take advantage of all outer clubs. Everyone plays everyone in the same tier twice, and the other tier once. Wouldn't it be kinder and fairer to the likes of Cas etc, while allowing the full cappers to grow?
On Salford, I am hugely encouraged by Martyn's post.
I don't agree with Parksider's estimate of the level of investment. But really no one knows what losses would need to be endurd and for how long, as we have never had a cashed up professional set up running Salford.
Potentially happy days.

Less of a broken record, more an auto-repeat of a one track playlist.

You've convinced me about a 2 tier SL though, although at the moment I would go for 8 in each or there would be some horrible tonkings and the money would be very thin.

To be honest, a 2 or 3 tier championship could work pretty well like this as well.

Back on topic, though, we should definitely look to grow our latent support in neighbouring sympathetic markets, and Manchester is the biggest of the lot. Doesn't have to mean plonking new clubs all over the place, but the game could easily get significant following in other places like Liverpool and Sheffield of course, although the Eagles are doing their best with not a lot of RFL help of course.

[Exiled Wiganer]

Why don't they?

Every season clubs with far bigger crowds and far more juniors making the grade announce big losses. It's quite easy to estimate that by the time Salford are turning out stars (15 years) and getting 10K crowds (10 years?) they'll have had to have "millions and millions of investment"

Agree with that??

It's not a real estimate though is it? Whatever figures you or I come up with would be driven by so many assumptions as to be worthless. I agree it would cost millions in investment, neither of us knows how many millions.
I read that they could break even on 8k crowds on their own, but that their position has since improved because Sale are sharing he rent. If the break even figure drops to 7k, then they are 1500 people down per game. 14 games, 21k people... I suspect that's a significant underestimate, but even so it's hardly 2m a year is it?
Agree with that???

[The Parksider]

1.It's not a real estimate though is it? Whatever figures you or I come up with would be driven by so many assumptions as to be worthless. I agree it would cost millions in investment, neither of us knows how many millions.

2. I read that they could break even on 8k crowds on their own, but that their position has since improved because Sale are sharing he rent. If the break even figure drops to 7k, then they are 1500 people down per game. 14 games, 21k people... I suspect that's a significant underestimate. Agree with that???

1. There you go we actually agreed. We both say it will cost millions we neither said we knew exactly, and the problem is if the investor doesn't spend enough millions they may end up like Wilko 30 years of getting nowhere,

2. No I don't agree with that as you yourself say it's a significant under estimate.

Glad we're agreed now

Edited by The Parksider, 26 October 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

An official average gate of 7k was good in the 70s. Just out of interest, what was Wires average gate in the Wembley winning year of 74?

I can only go back as far as 75/76, when Wire were the fourth best supported side at 4711 with Saints (4759), Salford (5313) and Widnes (5949) above them. Just for interest, Wigan's average was 3933!

[The Parksider]

Salford is not a rugby area and never has been really. It doesnt have a strong amateur base it can use to bring in young players, crowds or work to help develop the club and game in the area. Its crowds are small and there never really has been much interest shown in Salford by locals for decades. Salford are just drifting through SL fighting to stay alive-much like a few others sadly. It has had chances to change itself, but has done very badly in promoting itself. I do feel the new Stadium should have been the springboard for Salford to be a top 8 side if not a top 6 one. Becoming a bigger and better club takes a few years, but it needs something to build off. It doesnt just happen. Salford wasted the chance.The New Stadium in a decent area, right next to the motorway and the chance to be "THE" Rugby club of either code in the Manchester area. Instead they have allowed Sale in and for me just simply waited and hoped things would happen. Even if a new consortium take over, its going to take many years to be a decent well run club. Salford has a negative vibe about it and to get rid of that reputation, will not be easy and no doubt will require money, time and patience. Its OK a new consortium coming in, but they have to get Salford to be something different and that is not just going to happen overnight. I dont feel much will change with Salford unless they have somebody who is willing to spend alot of money. A new owner will still have to initially work with small crowds, a club losing money and a negative vibe. And the problems now will be the same for the next few years. Unless the Consortium/Investors are willing to throw hundred of thousands of pounds at Salford, the financial millstone will bring them down once again.

Excellent post Lizzy....

Edited by The Parksider, 26 October 2012 - 07:49 PM.

[bricktop]

You could now change the title of this thread to

Oh Dear! Wakey in bother.

[Gregory Peccary]

http://www.salfordon...nother_day.html

[Gregory Peccary]

http://www.reds.co.u...icial-statement

[JohnM]

Worth repeating the clubs statement?
As was reported recently, Salford City Reds were in court this morning in relation to a winding up petition brought by management consultants Steuer Gregsson. The result of the hearing was that Steuer Greggson withdrew the petition as the matter had been settled between themselves and Salford City Reds prior to the court date. The hearing was adjourned, as expected, until 7th January 2013 due to two players attaching themselves to the petition, however the club maintains that payments owed to these players will be made on time and in advance of the second court date. This matter relates to contractual payments not due to be made until the end of November. The Club are still in discussions regarding future investment. Meanwhile we welcome the players back to training in approximately one week and look forward to the new campaign.

[41hound]

Well we are still going. Just. Perhaps we will get a last minute new owner and manage to turn it around? But its not great right now. - I am truly fed up with it all at the moment. I just want to enjoy rugby not talk about financial c##p all the time.

We have 14 senior players contracted for next year that I know of - plus of course our remaining teenagers. It might be a bit more - we have not updated the website squad section yet!

Looks like a fun season ahead. - never mind, its only a game............... .

[Red Willow]

Salford are already producing players, it's holding on to them that causes the problems!

The investment might not need to be too much, there are issues with the way the club is run rather than the amount of money.

[41hound]

On a brighter note - On SKY Sports News; Joel Moon is definately playing for Reds next year.

Phil Veivers has 5 players to sign on - he just can't do it until the money nonsense is sorted out .......

[Derwent]

Worth repeating the clubs statement?
As was reported recently, Salford City Reds were in court this morning in relation to a winding up petition brought by management consultants Steuer Gregsson. The result of the hearing was that Steuer Greggson withdrew the petition as the matter had been settled between themselves and Salford City Reds prior to the court date. The hearing was adjourned, as expected, until 7th January 2013 due to two players attaching themselves to the petition, however the club maintains that payments owed to these players will be made on time and in advance of the second court date. This matter relates to contractual payments not due to be made until the end of November. The Club are still in discussions regarding future investment. Meanwhile we welcome the players back to training in approximately one week and look forward to the new campaign.

That is a load of nonsense, quite frankly.

The judge would have dismissed the petition if the money wasn't due, you can only legally petition once a debt has passed its due date. Salford's claim that it is for payments not due until November does not hold any water at all.

BTW, the players are owed around £40k each and are saying it is for back monies owed via a salary sacrifice scheme. When those kind of sums are involved you can not blame the two players for their actions. Also, HMRC have now joined the petition for an as yet undisclosed amount of unpaid PAYE, though I note that Salford have forgotten to mention that.