dboy

I'd agree, but in this instance, that taxpayers money is paid directly to Peel Holdings, to make up the £600k short fall in Salford RDs rent payments.

The thing "causing the issues" is your club spends more money than it generates and relies on the fan-boy councillors (spending local tax payers money), to keep you afloat. Run a sustainable business model and pay your rent!

Oh, I thought after Bulls fans blamed everyone but the Bulls club for their woes, that we'd decided it was the RFLs/collective sport's obligation to ensure that clubs were well run. And you may also ask how IMG saw Salford as anything other than a basket-case. I'm glad good sense has returned and we can agree that this is all Salford's making and they must live with it! (You wouldn't guess that from Salford's weepy little press-release though).

Yes they did. And I'm still waiting for them to pay the vet's bill. In truth, I'm ###### off that the "game" has looked the other way whilst watching another Bulls-style implosion!

And then what? And what of the Salford tax payers? And what of the increasing rent-debt (also underwritten by Salford Council)? And what of their ongoing mega-signings?

This bit cracks me up - "there has been a developing narrative that the Club is not paying its way, when in reality the unfavourable terms of the current tenancy agreement is extracting from the Club’s key income sources, on top of rent." YOU HAVE NEVER PAID YOUR FULL RENT!

Don't they write as taking an EXTRA 8%? Anyway, I've worked it out. It's just a ruse to get visits to their website.

They haven't run this business model for 50 years. It's gone this way since they took on a stadium deal they couldn't afford.

FWIW, this press release is just an attempt to blackmail the council into paying more aid. Will it work?

Not a fan of any club with this business model. It only ever ends in tears. It's unsustainable. The folly of the fan ownership fundraiser was highlighted at the time - it's one-off banked and spent.

What, have a whip round maybe? Or attend games in their tens of thousands?

No, not at all. I feel for the fans. Just like the Bulls fans previously, they have been taken for mugs. The club knew exactly what they were doing.

Of course they had some superb recruitment - THEY DON'T PAY THEIR RENT! They are a sham club, with an unsustainable business model. The fan ownership ploy was simply to try and see the season out and hope the council would save them YET AGAIN! They have no right to be in SL.

AJ Bell.

THAT'S what it's got to do with IMG grades.

Read the press release - lose their tenancy, lose their central funding, they're bust.

More like memories of Bulls = squad they can't afford, not meeting their bills...fleecing fans in a desperate ploy to keep going... That's not a dig at Bulls - that's history. Salford learned nothing from the Bull's demise.

So you have witnessed this in private?

You're not getting away with that! WHERE has anyone said this? They haven't.

I know. As a Wakey fan I'll be incredibly embarrassed if we win the league, win the 1895 Cup, win the GF and regain our place in SL. I'll be devastated. Not.

Largely agree with all that, but putting seats in a stand designed for standing is a material change of use.

I'm wondering how Cas are doing this work without planning permission - it's material change to the use of the structures, and also wonder what plans they have to get any amended structures signed off by WMDC licencing. Also, the Jan date for PP on the new development is the earliest the application can go in - it doesn't automatically follow that a decision will be made at that time.

But it's reach is credited to particular clubs, regardless of who they are, why they are watching, where their allegiances lay, what day of the week it's on, when it is in the season, what it's up against, frequency... It's a blunt tool when the reach generated is attributed to individual clubs.

Which underlines perfectly why it's a blunt tool.

It's relevant to your assertion that more people watch because Leeds are playing - you frame it as Leeds = popular. They're not. Everyone wants to see them fail. Leeds losing = popular. The further relevance is that it shows the flaw in this being a very blunt measure of "reach". There needs to be a much better strategy for growing the TV footprint for the whole game.