M j M
-
Posts
11,990 -
Joined
-
Days Won
34
Posts posted by M j M
-
-
2 hours ago, Damien said:
He was a key part of the running of Salford for 8 years. Salford lost huge amounts year on year on his watch, blatantly overspent and failed to pay rent. Less than a year ago the council had to bail them out to the tune of £315k while he was there. Obviously he's at Leeds now though so none of the bad can be anything to do with him
Not really, just a bit weird to suddenly decide it is any individual's fault. The people running Salford have been keeping the wolves from the door for years now, that's not news to anyone, they have got very good at it. Until now they have done that balancing act successfully.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, dboy said:
The incomes from their business. Sponsorships, ticket money, merch, SL funding, loans from the council...
It doesn't go on the rent, they don't fully pay it. It doesn't go on the stadium - they're tenants.
If it's not going on players, where is it going?
What expenditures do they have they needed a half a million pound advance?
Obvs there's the
holidaywarm weather training camp...All clubs have overheads well beyond the costs of the first team squad, admin back room staff etc etc. And their income streams we know aren't very strong to begin with. If you really think Salford are splurging on unnecessary costs then I think you need a quick tour around a Rugby League club's P&L.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, dboy said:
If it's not going on players, where IS the money going??
What money?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Damien said:
Ian Blease never seems to get a mention but he was CEO for 8 years then jumped ship to Leeds. All these losses were happening under his watch.
He was headhunted rather than just deciding to leave but either way budgets would have been agreed by a board not just conjured up by one person.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, phiggins said:
Brierley signed an extension when there was interest elsewhere. As did Lafai and Sneyd. Shorrocks will have had other offers while Nene MacDonald would not have moved back to the UK for a 4 year deal on peanuts. Mellor was already on another contract, earned whilst he was Leigh’s club captain.
MacDonald couldn't get an NRL contract and his reputation preceded him at most SL clubs, who had completed their squads anyway by that stage. So yes he was another player with great upside but who will have arrived with a discount.
-
30 minutes ago, dboy said:
It was a question about how he's perceived.
The word "considered" and the squiggly question mark at the end of the sentence were the clues.
Radlinksi made a similar move but didn't receive the same vitriol or ridicule - is that because he was considered a darling of the game?
No it wasn't, the question was "Why do we have to bring people down?".
Every time I've encountered Myler he has been pleasant and down to earth. I know lots of Rugby League people seem to hate him, from a distance, for their perceptions of his actions on and off field. But the level of abuse he gets is totally disproportionate and certainly not edifying.
-
5
-
-
54 minutes ago, dboy said:
Is it because he's considered to be a s***house?
You know him well then?
-
1
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, phiggins said:
Is there actually any evidence of that claim? I seriously doubt they spent less than Cas for example. Their first 13/17 players will be on a decent amount relative to the rest of the league imo.
It's hard to know for sure from the outside but we all know Salford pick up, for want of a better word, rejects from other clubs that Rowley specialises in bringing back to good form. So by default they tend to get players on the cheap.
-
2 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:
He is the owner. He has poured millions into HRLFC already, which he has no expectation of getting back. He is a wise businessman, may I speculate wiser than either you or I. He is making the judgement about the best way to spend his money on bringing about a stable future for the club, which he sees as requiring a different ground. Without KD there is no club, simple as that.
I'm not questioning that without Davy there wouldn't be a club or that they need a smaller ground. And I've repeatedly acknowledged the club's growth in fans since moving to the stadium. That's part of the point.
But Davy definitely hasn't shown himself immune from poor decision making and Huddersfield fans unquestioningly accepting moving out of town because "Ken knows what he is doing" is just bonkers to me.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, daz39 said:
The profile in Huddersfield is already pretty non-existant, as i've said no-one knows who will go and who won't, it's a gamble but one the club feel they need to take.
We're going round in circles but I have seen absolutely nothing to say it's a gamble which needs taking, reinforced by the interview with Davy.
Huddersfield have been at the stadium for over three decades, staying there won't present any unknown challenges. Going to the Shay might be ok or it might kill the club for good. Why would you do that?
-
6 minutes ago, daz39 said:
Our club and most certainly our fans do not like the stadium, it's one of the main reason a lot of fans have stopped going, we have no space or branding there, it's depressing but most of all the longer we are there the more IMG points we will lose.
It gives a bad image of the club, hell just look at the comments on here with 4,500 in it, put them in the Shay and it looks miles better already.
It's not just about atmosphere it's about making sure we keep our SL status, where we currently are we have no chance of improving our scores, at the Shay we have till we can get back 'home'.
There will be no cost to fans, free travel will be provided, for those who use buses/trains, the bus to 'fax takes 25 minutes from Huddersfield bus station and the train is 11 minutes.
We have no idea how many will go, a lot of us who remember the 3 game sin 2011 seem to have enjoyed the Shay, some are already looking forward to a change of scenery away from the horrid place we currently use so it's all a big what if at the moment.
Just because Davy has done a lot for the club doesn't mean he's the all-knowing Messiah. The assumption that you'd get the same crowds in Halifax as you do now is just not proven by any club that has moved out of their home town. Let's look at St Helens in Widnes in 2011, similar distance apart as Halifax and Huddersfield. They did all the things Davy/you are suggesting, but knew they would only be there for one year. Crowds still went down by a third. That would definitely have been compounded if it had dragged on into a second and third year.
You will be reduced to the absolute hardcore, and whilst you might think that's where you're already at there's no doubt people who might still come out to big games who would not do so if you relocated to a different town.
Meanwhile the profile of the club in Huddersfield would fall from whatever it is now to almost non-existent. Out of sight, out of mind for a decade and what are you left with?
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Padge said:
Do you not think it could be a bit of arm twisting of local politicians, businesses to look at expediting any proposals local proposals.
Maybe. But if so it'd be pretty crappy to mess the Halifax clubs around just as a pawn in his dealings with Kirklees council.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Damien said:
Interview with Ken Davy. Obviously he may be saying what he thinks people want to hear but he does sound like he's genuine in his intentions on moving back to Huddersfield. It'll be interesting to see what site in Huddersfield they are nearly at the pre-planning stage with:
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/ken-davy-huddersfield-giants-shay-30754333
I can't see any reason that crowds wouldn't go down if they moved out of their home town. Is this really worth it to just to give an average 3,000 fans in a 10,000 capacity stadium a better atmosphere than 5,000 in a 24,000 capacity one?
Davy has done a lot for Huddersfield but to me this really seems ill considered. The link between home town and stadium should only be broken in the most desperate of circumstances.
-
3
-
-
54 minutes ago, dboy said:
That's factually incorrect.
There may be clubs who don't commercially generate an income equal to expenditure, but if there's another funding stream e.g. a Moran/Beaumont/Ellis/Davy, that's still a sustainable business model.
Until they change their mind or die, perhaps...but until then, it is.
I don't view that as a sustainable business. It's surviving, for sure and it's probably sustainable as long as they stick around. But it's not a business in any conventional sense of the word.
-
2
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, dboy said:
We also can't continue with a situation where the only club in the league not running a sustainable business are sat at the top end of the table and celebrated as something magical.
There are precisely zero clubs in the league running sustainable businesses.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:
If I were to write a sociology essay about it, I’d say Littler himself is defined almost by an absence of “character” in the sense that marketers and nostalgics usually mean.
This is a good point and shows why just saying "create some stars" is easy to say but much harder to do. You need people to pay attention, then to care, then to have the players who might get people interested - and even then just being a zany character might not hold people's interest.
Littler, and Sinfield, do not exactly have what could be considered particularly conventionally winning or exuberant public personas.
-
IMG, in fact everyone really, knows the issue about players being stars. That's not some amazing insight.
But as with so many things it's a lot easier said than done.
-
3
-
-
34 minutes ago, daz39 said:
Personally i hate the John Smith's so part of me is happy we won't be there anymore and i'm happy to trust Ken and go to Fax for a couple of years if it benefits us in the long term.
Given the new Huddersfield stadium is nowhere in the planning process yet you're probably looking at least at 5 to 10 years playing out of town in Halifax. I think that would be an insane move for the club to make unless it has no alternative and is being pushed out of the John Smith's.
-
7
-
-
2 hours ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:
It's not that important but it's fascinating how Matt Shaw has been chasing his tail on this one whilst Aaron Bower has produced much more substantive journalism. I guess for once Shaw doesn't have decent inside sources for this particular story, his reports have been floundering a bit.
-
1
-
-
Would we actually want to be on a dedicated channel or does being on the general Sky channels avoid us disappearing into a TV ghetto that only gets watched by the hard core but is never on eg in the background in pubs?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, LeytherRob said:
I've got a lot of time for Matt Shaw compared to his more clickbaity rivals. But that is an absolutely nothing story, and his switching between reporter and analyst/commentator is not helpful in this respect (demanding "tough decisions" and the rubbish about the team going on warm weather training etc).
I suspect the poor quality of this report is because Aaron Bower at Love Rugby League came out with some proper reporting a couple of hours earlier and Shaw felt the need to have something Salford-related out there, even if he had nothing to say.
-
2
-
1
-
-
There surely must be something urgently pushing Huddersfield out of the John Smith's Stadium?
There can't be any other reason for upsetting the status quo which has worked very, very well for the RL team since the stadium was built, small utilisation % or not. Leaving your home town entirely whilst there is a perfectly good stadium there is a dangerous game that only clubs who have lost their existing ground play at, often with sad results.
-
7
-
-
4 minutes ago, Worzel said:
There's no harm in some people in the game stating "the obvious" from time to time to help us avoid that.
Stating the obvious is very useful.
Stating the ridiculous is not.
-
9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:
An article that reveals how absymal and deluded union administrators are. It's easy for Rugby League to look good in comparison to fantasists who think their sport is as big, or has a right to be as big, as soccer.
Salford financial issues(again…)
in The General Rugby League Forum
Posted
I guess it depends if you view juggling almost impossible finances whilst keeping a more than vaguely competitive team as an art form to be lauded or irresponsible management. I'm minded a bit towards the former - more clubs than we'd like to admit operate or have operated in this way.
The key objective of so much in sport at the level Salford and many Championship as well as smaller soccer clubs operate is just survival until the next game, week, season. They operate on the basis that something will turn up - hope IS the strategy.