Exiled Wiganer
-
Posts
10,083 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Exiled Wiganer
-
-
I suspect we are viewing this from an entirely different perspective from any purchasers of whatever is being sold. It looks very much as if the purchase is not being made by a Danson figure - a home town boy with deep pockets who loves his team.
Assuming that, then SRD would be part of a much bigger deal, involving valuable land, plus by the sound of it the stadium and the club. If that is financed, then the lenders won’t care what happens to SRD, as it would be a drain on their bottom line. And what we are seeing now is consistent with that: they are at best an afterthought and at worst a liability to be got rid of. Good luck with drafting the contract which ensures that SRD are not only bought but also sustained and supported on the likely very long road to break even.
And all this after SRD had been awarded a licence after an exhaustive evaluation process…
-
1
-
-
HKR looked superb. Peters has his team so well drilled, that they are always in control in attack and defence. Saints simply cracked under the set by set pressure.
-
3
-
-
They were 10m ahead of the kicker…
Salford, now everyone’s 12th favourite SL team, finding that clubs that simply get on with life have an extra level of resilience.
-
4
-
-
Cracking game this, in its own way.
-
Ordinarily, I would be very confident, but I do wonder what effect going to Vegas and back in a week will have on us (and Warrington). I am surprised we have chosen the same squad, as I would have thought this was a game to use anyone and everyone we can to reduce the risk of injury. I suspect a performance akin to an Easter Monday after the lord’s mayor show.
Anyway, we did what we set out to do in Vegas, so whatever happens that one was ticked off.
-
I thought a number of the decisions were arguable, but none was egregious. Which means that, despite looking at it every which way there was an element of judgment involved. Really enjoyable match - FC are so much better this year. Wigan were lucky to catch them when we did.
-
Those special measures in full:
- we will measure their weight using a giant sized set of.scales (previously purchased by a CEO to check there were enough sausage rolls for the buffet);
- we will measure their height using these novelty rulers made from real chocolate donated by Swiss Tony the new “owner”; and
- we will measure their financial standing using a set of beans we traded the RFL cow for…
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Damien said:
Yeah to me the obvious solution is just not to count it in the average.
On the other side we also need to be careful not to punish team for taking a game on the road like this and trying something new. Even on a bad day Wigan are getting 15k+ for this game and hopefully nearer 20k. Why should Wigan get lumbered with a 10k average when they would do far better just staying at home. Like you said for Wigan it doesn't really matter but it will for some clubs.
Or, I suppose have a rule in the average spectator test. For instance, you could argue that it is “likely” that Wigan’s home crowd against Wire would vary by the same percentage as the overall percentage increases/decreases from like for like games and deem that to be the figure.
So, if Wigan increase their crowds against all the other clubs we played last year by 10% and the Wire game last year had a 15k crowd (I haven’t checked as I couldn’t face being reminded of that night…) then they could deem a 16.5k crowd. Of course nothing is ever like for like in life, but that could work.
-
1
-
-
In a way it’s just as well Wigan are the home side, as 10k or 45k is neither here nor there for us, but for another club this could be a very important factor. If, say, Salford were deemed to be the home team, 45k could nearly double their aggregate (and hence average) for the season…
-
2
-
-
I would love to see Bradford in SL. Provided they had the reserves to spend near or to the salary cap. They are clearly a far bigger club - in terms of recent history, potential for growth and support- than Huddersfield, Salford, Leigh and Cas. For that to happen we need them to be best of the rest and for the financial tests to bite properly on clubs of straw. Or a 14 team league.
-
1
-
-
The Wire defence was often out of shape because Wigan had too many options for them to cover every one of them. It Was maths, patience and clinical execution. Another big factor was Smith more effectively running the ball. With Leeming, Ellis, Smith, French and Field all passing and running threats, inside and out, and 2 centre/wing combinations who are off the scale good at finishing, any team would have struggled.
As for Thewlis, I don’t think he was targeted because of any perceived weakness, rather as an acknowledgement that Ashton is world class.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:
Totally agree with your points. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect Wigan and Warrington fans to turn up again next year, as you point out for many it will have been a once in a lifetime experience.
But ideally SL clubs should be involved......Leeds? Catalans? (For even more flavour?)This was Wigan and Wire initiative. It is open to anyone else to have a go, or not. This was a brilliant idea well executed, but it was down entirely to the clubs. Incidentally, in commentary they mentioned that the 2 teams had discussed playing a game in Ireland next. Looking at the other games and the overall crowd, without us they would have had a damp squib.
(Sorry, missed Damien making the same points.)
-
I wonder whether Sam B’s week has been a big factor in Wire’s under performance. He was late and then in massive demand on media duties. Staff pick up on a boss less than completely dialled in.
-
2 hours ago, back in the day said:
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, RP London said:
I don't understand why you think I'm relaxed about this .. it's like you've not read the previous posts... I'm seething this has happened. I just don't necessarily agree that if you change the rules you fix the problem, they just get around that rule. Should they have been kicked out when they ran out of money? Yes 100%. Should the system have shown this? yes 100%.
Their financials were woeful, does this show up the system? No I don't think it does, it shows up the poor choices we had to replace them. IF they could have solved the money issue earlier they have the other bits in the gradings to make them a very very good club which is what the gradings are aiming to find.
I am far from "relaxed" I am however a realist. Yes they need to put in place something robust that is not subjective that solves this (liquidity test maybe but that can then be fiddled with by short term injections of money that the week after get withdrawn as they aren't guaranteed). Once you know the rule you need to get around you can get around it so that has to be heavily considered. In terms of who is doing the auditing, yes of agree someone like PWC should be involved, but I think IIRC there is more than just IMG/RFL doing this.
My apologies for the “relaxed” bit. It was clumsy and unfair. I think we have ended up pretty much on the same page. Which is nice.
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, RP London said:
This has been gone over heavily already. I don't 100% disagree but I also 100% would argue that if that is the rule there will be a way to make that happen without it necessarily being true.. change the rule but people will find a way around the new rule IF they really want to. You cannot go back and say it would have worked because if you put it in place the butterfly effect theory says everything now changes.
I think they need to tweak the financials but they need to have a look at exactly what they could look at that is not subjective, it cannot be a subjective "I don't think you can pay them in 2 months" it has to be objective. But they defo need to get that right.
However, this was an argument had months ago and there's loads more detail in the discussions including financial implications and how you can get around things written by other people about this in the previous pages.
You can be as relaxed about it as you like. That is fine by me. Our starting points are some distance apart- for instance, I would have asked someone else to do this analysis (or at least the finance aspects) from the outset, but I don’t award contracts at the RFL.
There could have been red flag parts of the assessment. There are very few fundamentals to contributing to a thriving competition, and being in a position to field a team is, in my opinion, one of them.
Moreover, a well designed assessment process would have certain events which would be all or nothings, and build in an element of discretion into the judgement process.
A key point for the prosecution here is that nothing unusual happened: they were simply living beyond their means and ran out of road. No big sponsor withdrew, no force majeure, nothing. If a financial viability test fails to spot that it is demonstrably not fit for purpose. It was just maths: they had £50 in the bank and £100 of bills imminent. Anyone who couldn’t spot that train coming down the tracks was asleep at the wheel.
I suspect we have masses of common ground in wanting to see the game over here somehow escape from the abyss and hope that the new process helps do that. It pains me greatly to see this unfold, and I hope against hope that the non payment of wages is a minor teething issue.
-
1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:
Points 1 and 2 could only really achieved by forcing Salford into liquidation by refusing the advance of TV money. In the wider interests of the sport, and on the expectation that a takeover was imminent, I can see why this option was avoided, although Salford haven't exactly shown much gratitude for it.
Not sure how the takeover money could be lodged with the RFL, given it's a transaction between private parties, but that leads to the Sus Cap points... I agree on both. There are tools available to the RFL here and they fully need to use them. It's not as if Salford's results would have been any worse.
I hope the takeover money is real, if it is then this could still all end up well.
But for the future for any club, we definitely need to tweak the finance grading further so it reflects underlying strength more, to avoid rapid collapses like we nearly saw here...and still could.
I wish I had seen this before posting my own reply, as it sets out in more measured terms my central point.
I am just waiting to be accused of lying, but given that it’s a nice Saturday afternoon, I may be spared for a while.
-
1 hour ago, RP London said:
I hate to be a bit of an d*** about this but if you don't know how it works and what was incorrect how can you make a judgment on it?
It's also hardly difficult to find out, top link when you Google "Salford red devils IMG score" is this https://www.salfordreddevils.com/salford-red-devils-publish-img-grading-breakdown/#:~:text=Salford Red Devils have been,announcement of our leadership restructure. Which tells you how it's broken down.
Finances encompass turnover, revenue etc etc just because they have no cash or profit does not mean they have no income or turnover.. they are very very different things (and that's just the basics of the financial scoring). For balance sheet they literally get 0.
Now you can argue balance sheet should hold more weighting etc and that has been done.. but you can manipulate some of this and that's why there are so many parts to each pillar as manipulate one part will effect another (is the plan anyway).
The information is all out there though.
You can argue that a “are they in imminent danger of being unable to field a team” could be a part of a financial analysis, and if the conclusion is “no” then they should not be awarded a licence. What is key here is that absolutely none of the problems they faced came about from a change of circumstances. It was an inevitable consequence of their direction of travel. Indeed, I would argue, very strongly indeed, that any test determining who will take part in SL in the following season should be capable of ensuring something like this does not happen. The test was either incorrectly applied, and your review (thanks for doing the hard work for us) suggests that wasn’t the case, or was a rubbish test.
Salford’s IMG score is essentially the Monthy Python cheese shop sketch.
-
3
-
-
15 hours ago, Barry Badrinath said:
Home advantage?
My “joke”.
-
I am prepared to hope for the best. It is arguable that Salford has never had a truly professional well resourced back office before, and so we may not know just how big they could be. In my decades in exile, there was a brief period when Virgin ran the Broncos when it felt as if they knew how to market the club and crowds were for an all too brief period pretty healthy. It requires time and deepish pockets. I think the tipping point comes when you have enough people there that you can bring neutrals/newbies along without them looking around at empty seats and wondering why they are there.
Good luck, Mr Irwin.
-
1
-
-
I am not surprised that our fans are wowing the locals. We are the best fans in the world. I sometimes feel our brilliance is under appreciated over here.
My take on this sort of thing is that the real difference maker is in getting Sky/BBC etc to get people over there. Once that is on the cards then the journos themselves have to talk it up in advance and when they over there to justify their own jolly. So it becomes hugely mutually reinforcing.
If say you are one of 3000 BBC employees who goes to the Paris olympics it is in your best interests to show that event in the best possible light (gloss over ridiculous opening ceremonies and a river of s—t and over hype wins by French athletes unknown and irrelevant to those of us on this side of la Manche, because there’s a ticket to LA28 riding on it…).
As soon as it became apparent Sky were going to have boots on the ground, the game justified its existence. Which is great, and much as it pains me to write this, but once again the game is in Wigan’s debt.
-
1
-
-
The last time we played Wire they took us apart. I think that should focus the mind somewhat. 2 evenly matched teams, so home advantage will make the difference in a cracker. Which could well be watched by SL’s biggest ever crowd (even if 10s of thousands of them don’t actually watch it…)
-
We should combine our 2026 US game to coincide with our inevitable invitation to the Oscars.
-
1
-
-
If the vegas crowd is 50k plus then there is a chance that the overall figure for this round could be a new record…
Salford financial issues(again…)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I had to read that a couple of times to make sure I had understood your proposition. I then went looking for the news stories about the RFL paying Toulouse’s and Bradford’s players’ wages, and couldn’t find them. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction, because otherwise it looks very much to me that we have a club who was awarded a licence after a much heralded evaluation process who are being propped up by the entire game. When absolutely nothing has changed - no major sponsor withdrew, no backer withdrew, the central revenues were the same.
So, it’s that system which is above criticism? Err, just cos??