gingerjon
-
Posts
43,940 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
279
Posts posted by gingerjon
-
-
First round of fixtures
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, sam4731 said:
No but I'd like limiting factors, like being sustainable financially.
So should that be worth more than it currently is and how would you have set it up so Salford scored low enough on it for it be worth demotion versus, say, Toulouse now getting a high enough score on it to come in?
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:
Red lights have gone off on a dozen laptops after that comment.
Which sport was it that you've got your ten year long connection with IMG through?
-
2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
You are absolutely right.
The gradings scores are explicitly about what is there, not what is planned. So for Cas this is bad news for the future they hoped for, but not impactful on their situation now.
Compared to licencing, and other systems, where clubs have promised ground developments as part of the process and then announced a delay or found some different plans.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Worzel said:
This is the right decision. RL Commercial should probably insist on a Board seat, and veto on major expendutures until such time as the club is properly capitalised. We should have some sort of "special measures" system for clubs who are needing central support.
It's in the Operational Rules.
-
1
-
-
-
12 minutes ago, Wollo Wollo Wayoo said:
Forget Matt Ellis and think about Michael Carter having to balance the books back in 2013 by selling Kyle Amor, Tim Smith and Ben Cockayne. Few others released like Kyle Wood and Paul Aiton.
Coincidently £400k was banded around as the shortfall iirc. Why aren't Salford pursuing a similar strategy?
Presumably this will be one of the reasons why the clubs have stepped away from decision making.
"Yes, we could advance you £500,000 but, instead, how about you give X to Wigan, Y to Saints and Z to Catalans ..."
It's for the RFL to decide if Salford need to go down that route, not the clubs who would benefit from it.
-
4
-
-
7 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:
Sorry did I say 3pm? meeting now cancelled and clubs have deferred to the RFL to figure out this mess, thus delaying things further
That's the right call by the clubs.
-
3
-
-
59 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:
Heck, even Skokars could do it twice a year, once a pre-season with Broncos and then again on Challenge Cup weekend.
That must have worked well for them.
Who are they playing next?
-
1
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, John Drake said:
It's an odd thing to have a referendum about,
Switzerland does referendums. It's their thing. Along with banking, discretion and cuckoo clocks.
-
42 minutes ago, corkonian77 said:
Football is where the money is. The West African populations tend to drift towards that sport as they have role models and even If they don't hit the big time wages as high as £3,000 a week in National League are not unheard of.
In every population demographic we will lose potential players to football.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:
My understanding from the Salford thread is that they had a 12-month extension that runs out in days/weeks. There doesn't seem to be anything in place for 2025 because the council purchase hasn't happened. Happy to hear differently.
Ah, okay. Yes, if that is the case then they really should have failed the “Is this stadium guaranteed for 2025?” question.
-
1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:
I think the bigger question is how Salford scored any stadium points when they didn't have a stadium deal in place for 2025.
I'm not wading through this again but I thought they did/do have a deal, just the actual ownership of the stadium is changing so confirming legal requirements for sponsors is not possible until that is completed? Their tenancy is not in question as far as I understand?
-
8 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:
Just a question as to whether Salford's low financial score was the correct score or whether it should have been lower.
But it was low. They scored under half the available points.
-
3
-
-
17 hours ago, Griff said:
Again. it's not my reading of rule D1.60, which is that there is one appeal, either to the RFL or Sports Resolution. At the discretion of the RFL. This decision has had far reaching consequences and should not be dealt with internally.
Having gone back to it last night, my reading follows yours. The appeal can go to the RFL or to Sports Resolutions. The process allows for either but not both.
In both cases, the panel is independent and, in both cases, it is intended to review how the original decision was reached and the fairness of the sanction - it is not usually a fresh look at the evidence.-
1
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:
I am not prejudging any answers, save that my experience of seeing IMG in action over the last 10 years is that they are good at what they know best, and that is broadcasting and sponsorship.
Which sport was this in?
-
43 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:
Correct, and it was clearly poor, just as Cas probably is for facilities. Hence this being their score breakdown for finances:
Finance (max score 4.5): – 2.15
Non-centralised turnover £: 1.50 / 2.25
Non-centralised turnover %: 0.15 / 0.75
Adjusted profit: 0.25 / 0.5
Owner investment: 0.25 / 0.5
Balance sheet strength: 0.00 / 0.5The clubs wanted a model that took a range of factors into consideration. They also wanted on field to be the highest scoring aspect of those factors. Finance, in all it's areas, therefore cannot be worth more than 5 points as that would put it on par with performance.
Salford scored less than half the possible maximum for finances. Financially they clearly don't do very well. However, because they scored well in other areas, they still remain one of the top 12 clubs in the country overall. That may change.
If it was just on finances, Salford likely wouldn't be in the top 12. That's obvious.
But it isn't just about finances.
That should end the debate on this specific bit really.
-
4
-
-
11 hours ago, Gooleboy said:
Looks like many football kits from down the years.
Aye, it's a match for pretty much every other non league away jersey.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Griff said:
Which Tribunal service would you have recommended?
Like Aston, I’ll go along with the one the RFL use.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Griff said:
There aren't many to choose from.
Still, stunning victory that the RFL are using the one named in the RFL's Operational Rules for this process.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, hawk-eye said:
Victory: RFL backs down and agrees to independent review
In a significant victory, the Rugby Football League (RFL) has relented and agreed to allow Mark Aston's case to be reviewed by Sport Resolutions, the UK's leading independent sports arbitration service used by virtually every other major sport, including football, rugby union and tennis.
This breakthrough ensures that Mark's 18-month suspension will now receive proper independent scrutiny....
They do know that Sports Resolutions is the RFL's named body for independent arbitration, don't they?
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Cb2 said:
So the latest I’ve heard is the former owners of Glos All Golds are taking over at Cornwall - could be old news by now though.
That’s the end of Cornwall then.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Griff said:
Dunno. There's only a limited analysis of costs.
I have no idea how these things work but it feels like there's a few stories there.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, DEANO said:
Who was the last team to be denied promotion in the football pyramid
You can have one from the other extreme as well. Despite finishing 7th, North Shields failed their grading (not completing required ground improvements) and were relegated into the league below.
The Goole Vikings Thread
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
With Cornwall, I said that year 2 would be the real test. I think Goole are set up well enough that things should be okay until the third season at least.