Jump to content

Salford getting a points deduction


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So the two main arguments for TWP being mercilessly booted out are failing to pay debts and not being able to fulfill fixtures. Yet within 24 hours of the SL clubs’ decision, two of them fall foul of

I completely understand that and Salford have pulled off a very shrewd move and done the right thing for Salford. I like Salford and have always supported their presence in Super League and if this ma

The points deduction should apply where it is actually a punishment, next year.

Posted Images

No it should be applied when the offence took place. It's like the live salary cap monitoring.

It should have been applied 7 years ago if anything. You can't say I'll ban a player next time he is due to play in the Wigan Saints derby. Any ban would apply to the next game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Red Willow said:

No it should be applied when the offence took place. It's like the live salary cap monitoring.

It should have been applied 7 years ago if anything. You can't say I'll ban a player next time he is due to play in the Wigan Saints derby. Any ban would apply to the next game.

I must have missed the howls of complaint 7 years ago that this wasn't applied then. The RFL statement is quite clear about the membership acceptance terms of the new club, on them entering this CVA agreement as a condition of that membership and that they had to fund the CVA of the old company. This certainly was not done so on the basis of this points deduction being in the season when the offence applied. According to this Salford haven't even paid the CVA since 2015:

The terms for the CVA, the Salford Star has understood, were that Salford Council would receive 4/25ths of what it was owed - a total of £253,291 - by 2018, with the rest of the debt - £1.33million – spread until 2038, interest free.

The CVA payments to the Council were to be paid directly to the Council from RFL amounts due to the club from tv rights and stuff. However, in summer 2015, the then City Mayor, Ian Stewart, agreed a payment holiday on the CVA for 17 months, meaning that the club didn't have to pay the Council and other creditors for that period.

The 'holiday' was extended by current City Mayor, Paul Dennett, for a further twelve months, and later 36 months in November 2017, which means that a payment was due this month.*

Given the secrecy from Salford Council and the statement from the RFL that "The CVA has now failed", it must be assumed that the Council has lost this money for good – unless someone can enlighten the Salford Star otherwise...

https://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=5935

I'm not really sure how this compares to the whole Bradford situation and their treatment but it would be interesting to know what the parallels are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Red Willow said:

Think it is just on line. They only have one style ranting.

Salford had part of initial punishment delayed to serve as an incentive to meet the terms of the CVA. They have been on a payment holiday for years. The 3 years ended this month and payments were due, hence the non compliance notice.

Yes I follow that. And as far as I can see its nothing to do with Salford (2013) and no linkage to Toronto or anything else.

Its a stand alone issue and the moot point took place years ago when may be (or not) the full 12 points should have been awarded.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

Yes I follow that. And as far as I can see its nothing to do with Salford (2013) and no linkage to Toronto or anything else.

Its a stand alone issue and the moot point took place years ago when may be (or not) the full 12 points should have been awarded.  

The RFL statement is quite clear about the membership acceptance terms of the new club and the connection to Salford 2013. They see a connection, the new Salford were admitted with that connection. If you are saying that the 2013 club has nothing to do with the new club then the new club should have started at the bottom of the pyramid. You can't have this both ways.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Damien said:

The RFL statement is quite clear about the membership acceptance terms of the new club and the connection to Salford 2013. They see a connection, the new Salford were admitted with that connection. If you are saying that the 2013 club has nothing to do with the new club then the new club should have started at the bottom of the pyramid. You can't have this both ways.

But the RFL didn't do that in 2013. If my Auntie had b0££*0ks she'd be my uncle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

But the RFL didn't do that in 2013. If my Auntie had b0££*0ks she'd be my uncle.

Fair enough. Lets end it there.

It is amusing though the way some posters do mental gymnastics depending on the club rather than having consistent viewpoints.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness I can understand some peoples indignation about this, although I'm not sure some of them would have had such a bee in there bonnet had this not have been Salford. 

However, I have to say from a purely selfish point of view this is a a great bit of creative accounting from the club.

Getting rid of a huge weight around our neck with few consequences seems like a no brainer to me, and highlights the benefit of having an administration expert on the board.

Had this been a regular season I have no doubt we would have met our commitment (Struggling to do so) and continued carrying the burden.

This season, and the wider financial world being what it is, the unprecedented circumstances that Covid has provided has for once its seems worked in our favor.

I now wonder if the RFL had been notified of this previously, hence there decision to slightly vindictively punish Salford for the unfulfilled Warrington fixture.

With the terms of that punishment yet to be confirmed or announced as far as I'm aware, I'm sure those of you gnashing your teeth about punishments being applied this season (Despite that being the terms of the agreement) will be satisfied by the impending sledgehammer likely to be coming our way.

Anyway all in all the future looks a lot rosier and sustainable from Salfords point of view, which for our long suffering fans is a good thing.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Big Red Keev said:

In fairness I can understand some peoples indignation about this, although I'm not sure some of them would have had such a bee in there bonnet had this not have been Salford. 

However, I have to say from a purely selfish point of view this is a a great bit of creative accounting from the club.

Getting rid of a huge weight around our neck with few consequences seems like a no brainer to me, and highlights the benefit of having an administration expert on the board.

Had this been a regular season I have no doubt we would have met our commitment (Struggling to do so) and continued carrying the burden.

This season, and the wider financial world being what it is, the unprecedented circumstances that Covid has provided has for once its seems worked in our favor.

I now wonder if the RFL had been notified of this previously, hence there decision to slightly vindictively punish Salford for the unfulfilled Warrington fixture.

With the terms of that punishment yet to be confirmed or announced as far as I'm aware, I'm sure those of you gnashing your teeth about punishments being applied this season (Despite that being the terms of the agreement) will be satisfied by the impending sledgehammer likely to be coming our way.

Anyway all in all the future looks a lot rosier and sustainable from Salfords point of view, which for our long suffering fans is a good thing.

 

I completely understand that and Salford have pulled off a very shrewd move and done the right thing for Salford. I like Salford and have always supported their presence in Super League and if this makes them much stronger going forward then great.

I was sympathetic towards Hull KR withdrawing. I was sympathetic towards Toronto's plight. I'm very much of the opinion that the game and clubs need to do what is required to get through this season and survive. If that means turning a blind eye and burying skeletons and starting next season with a clean slate then so be it. If that means needing extra support and concessions to support clubs then so be it. However I am more concerned about the governance of the game and the double standards on show. The sequence and timing of events doesn't sit well with me at all. Too much of what has happened in the last week, and weeks leading up to it, fails the sniff test.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Big Red Keev said:

In fairness I can understand some peoples indignation about this, although I'm not sure some of them would have had such a bee in there bonnet had this not have been Salford. 

However, I have to say from a purely selfish point of view this is a a great bit of creative accounting from the club.

Getting rid of a huge weight around our neck with few consequences seems like a no brainer to me, and highlights the benefit of having an administration expert on the board.

Had this been a regular season I have no doubt we would have met our commitment (Struggling to do so) and continued carrying the burden.

This season, and the wider financial world being what it is, the unprecedented circumstances that Covid has provided has for once its seems worked in our favor.

I now wonder if the RFL had been notified of this previously, hence there decision to slightly vindictively punish Salford for the unfulfilled Warrington fixture.

With the terms of that punishment yet to be confirmed or announced as far as I'm aware, I'm sure those of you gnashing your teeth about punishments being applied this season (Despite that being the terms of the agreement) will be satisfied by the impending sledgehammer likely to be coming our way.

Anyway all in all the future looks a lot rosier and sustainable from Salfords point of view, which for our long suffering fans is a good thing.

 

As a neutral I agree. Salford have been a credit to the game this year. They have gone the extra mile to keep us entertained during Covid, and I think they deserve goodwill. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Big Red Keev said:

In fairness I can understand some peoples indignation about this, although I'm not sure some of them would have had such a bee in there bonnet had this not have been Salford. 

However, I have to say from a purely selfish point of view this is a a great bit of creative accounting from the club.

Getting rid of a huge weight around our neck with few consequences seems like a no brainer to me, and highlights the benefit of having an administration expert on the board.

Had this been a regular season I have no doubt we would have met our commitment (Struggling to do so) and continued carrying the burden.

This season, and the wider financial world being what it is, the unprecedented circumstances that Covid has provided has for once its seems worked in our favor.

I now wonder if the RFL had been notified of this previously, hence there decision to slightly vindictively punish Salford for the unfulfilled Warrington fixture.

With the terms of that punishment yet to be confirmed or announced as far as I'm aware, I'm sure those of you gnashing your teeth about punishments being applied this season (Despite that being the terms of the agreement) will be satisfied by the impending sledgehammer likely to be coming our way.

Anyway all in all the future looks a lot rosier and sustainable from Salfords point of view, which for our long suffering fans is a good thing.

Is it creative?  The extra 6 points were time limited as I read it and that time limit expired at end of this season.  Happy to be  corrected.  So there was no option, it was inevitable.

The other statement from the RFL is that Salford Reds (2013) Ltd "does not impact on that company's debtor or creditor relationships". 

I am not a Salford fan.  I think it is frankly questionable whether the whole 12 points should not have been awarded right then.  But equally frankly the RFL clearly did not want Salford effectively relegated.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Dr Koukash took over from John Wilkinson he inherited,and accepted, all the debt.

When Dr Koukash left Salford it was stated that he left the club to 'the supporters',and it was also stated that he wrote off whatever the sum was he thought the club owed him.

I seem to recall this sum was in excess of the debt owed to the council.

https://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/444318-25-year-wait-to-recover-salford-reds-loan

It's beginning to appear that this niche,northern based sport,played in a handful of other places around the world,attracts rich people unlike any other sport.

They don't seem to pay what they owe.They leave the sport on a whim.None of them are ever prosecuted.

The sport requires a root and branch review of the governing body/bodies to prevent dishonest owners taking over clubs and stop the all fart and no sh** people involving  themselves in rugby league.

This bad publicity seems never ending... 

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Niels said:

As a neutral I agree. Salford have been a credit to the game this year. They have gone the extra mile to keep us entertained during Covid, and I think they deserve goodwill. 

Fair enough, but I don't think they will be getting any goodwill from the creditors they have defaulted on whoever they may be; and , it may have a negative impact on Salford doing business in the future with those individuals or businesses

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Red Willow said:

No it should be applied when the offence took place. It's like the live salary cap monitoring.

It should have been applied 7 years ago if anything. You can't say I'll ban a player next time he is due to play in the Wigan Saints derby. Any ban would apply to the next game.

You are on dangerous ground mentioning salary caps I was castigated and insulted when basically asking how it could happen

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DG70 said:

Seems like the RFL like to bully the smaller clubs, not sure the likes of Saints, Wigan would be hauled over the coals as severely.

I'm sure Bradford were a big club, much bigger than Salford, before they got all their punishments.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DG70 said:

Seems like the RFL like to bully the smaller clubs, not sure the likes of Saints, Wigan would be hauled over the coals as severely.

They gave them 7 years (with extra concessions in that) to not pay and gave them a penalty that means absolutely nothing with no relegation and no chance of them making even the extended playoffs.

As punishments, or to use your term "bullying", go its nothing.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DG70 said:

Seems like the RFL like to bully the smaller clubs, not sure the likes of Saints, Wigan would be hauled over the coals as severely.

How do you think they have punished Salford in any way?

Tommy put it better than me....for once

Edited by dkw
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They gave them 7 years (with extra concessions in that) to not pay and gave them a penalty that means absolutely nothing with no relegation and no chance of them making even the extended playoffs.

As punishments, or to use your term "bullying", go its nothing.

I have no complaints, we were docked 6 points 7 years ago and a further 6 now. That was a condition of the CVA. It means less money for position as I guess the missed games may have meant a playoff place.

As long as any club going bust have the same punishment it isn't a problem.

I assume everyone would have asked TWP to start in -12 as well

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DG70 said:

not sure the likes of Saints, Wigan would be hauled over the coals as severely.

Aren't you? I can't imagine why you've come to that conclusion.

 

15 minutes ago, Red Willow said:

As long as any club going bust have the same punishment it isn't a problem.

Are you expecting this to happen anytime soon?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...