Salford to move to Moor Lane?

[Ray Cashmere]

3 hours ago, Tonka said:

To be fair to Ray he quite deliberately said "full commercial control" in his original post.  When he says "effectively, yes" on the issue of legal ownership, he's not trying to suggest that leasehold = legal ownership of the title.  We all know, however, that leasehold ownership is akin to full ownership if you can treat the asset as yours, and that's all he's saying.  The length of the lease will be important (21 years is different to 100, for example), as will whether Salford as leaseholder is free to develop the seating capacity or make any other changes to enhance the stadium.

I just want to wish good luck to Ray, he comes across as pragmatic and on top of the issues.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

My issue is when people try and use things like this as a stick to beat Salford with such is their desperation to attack clubs like us.

Criticise our crowds. Criticise our poor performances on the pitch. Criticise the Koukash era. We're a long way away from where we should and need to be. Just don't try and manufacture contrived arguments over things which are positive and promising.

[Tonka]

51 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

Thanks, I appreciate it.

My issue is when people try and use things like this as a stick to beat Salford with such is their desperation to attack clubs like us.

Criticise our crowds. Criticise our poor performances on the pitch. Criticise the Koukash era. We're a long way away from where we should and need to be. Just don't try and manufacture contrived arguments over things which are positive and promising.

Yeah, I hear you.  I think you get a lot of confirmation bias, especially online, where people interpret things in line with their expectation/agenda/whatever rather than properly thinking through the pros and cons, and their relative importance.

Hope it goes well, I'm a Wigan fan but have always had a soft spot for Salford and want them to do well.

 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Johnoco said:

As positive as those things are, I don't think they negate all the downsides or mean they get away from criticism. They are going backwards and are going to play in a ground with approx a 5K capacity - and this in a supposedly elite competition. Put whatever spin you like on this, but it's not a positive development. 

That said, I wish them all the best and hope their fortunes improve. 

I'm very critical of Salford, I think it may have been earlier in this thread I was pretty blunt about them, but sometimes I do think we go a bit too far and forget a lot of the good work that goes on in RL and at the clubs. 

[M j M]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

When we say 3g everyone bar people who have some curious people knows what we are talking about. A non grass pitch that can be used constantly and consistently throughout the year, the like that would transform Salford from a 13 game a season activity into a genuine community club who should be having University teams, Cat 3 academy and schools using the ground in the afternoon and then renting the pitch from 6-10pm in the evening. 

On the other hand it would be less appreciated by the people we actually pay to play the sport on the pitch. Which is why I think what Wakefield are doing is misguided. But maintaining a top quality grass or grass-based pitch is an expensive business.

[theswanmcr]

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

I get the impression too many think a big box with a smaller crowd is better for the product, these people are misguided. If Salford got 5000 in their 5000 capacity it would look 100x better for everyone and crucially for the TV company. 

We’ll said. Not everyone but there is a lot of Salford bashing on here.

We are hammered for the mess we are in with the Stadium - fair enough and mistakes were made, but we built a new ground (after the much better original design collapsed) and didn’t just sit on our a*** like others. Turns out it was the wrong option in the end but we showed ambition and it backfired.

So now we have Hobson’s Choice by the looks of it with Moor Lane. And many having a go at the lack of ambition and small time look of a 5k stadium… after we have clearly shown that a bigger ground is too big for little Salford!

This ground option - though by no means perfect - will be fine for where we are at the minute and as you say Shropshire looks good when full.

if other bigger clubs with bigger grounds can come from somewhere to take our place in SL so be it.. but having been to both stadiums I’d rather go to Moor Lane than AJ Bell any day no matter what league we are playing in.

Edited November 10, 2021 by theswanmcr

[Wellsy4HullFC]

8 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

I get the impression too many think a big box with a smaller crowd is better for the product, these people are misguided. If Salford got 5000 in their 5000 capacity it would look 100x better for everyone and crucially for the TV company. 

I think that's the wrong take in some respects.

I don't think anyone thinks that a big box with a small crowd is good and I don't think many are saying that a small ground that's full isn't better.

The issue is that neither of these are good enough for an elite competition. One of those 2 options gives them a chance to reach that level, the other doesn't. 

The other option gives them a chance to build from their level, but that level is not the elite one. It feels like they're downgrading. With that downgrade off the field could see a downgrade on it.

This doesn't feel like a club fit for Super League currently.

I accept that they're doing what they need to to survive. They are in a better position to build for the future. But surely the sport should have bigger clubs in its top division than this in the interim.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Wellsy4HullFC

[dboy]

6 hours ago, Ray Cashmere said:

It's a matter of pedantry.

 

 

No.

You won't own the ground.

That's not pedantry.

It's a fact.

F.A.C.T.

[dboy]

Just now, dboy said:

No.

You won't own the ground.

That's not pedantry.

It's a fact.

F.A.C.T.

Just as by the sodding way, you didn't own the Barton ground, as was suggested.

 

[Ray Cashmere]

8 minutes ago, dboy said:

No.

You won't own the ground.

That's not pedantry.

It's a fact.

F.A.C.T.

Did Stuart Littler rob your lunch money as a kid or something? 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I think that's the wrong take in stone respects.

I don't think anyone thinks that a big box with a small crowd is good and I don't think many are saying that a small ground that's full isn't better.

The issue is that neither of these are good enough for an elite competition. One of those 2 options gives them a chance to reach that level, the other doesn't. 

The other option gives them a chance to build from their level, but that level is not the elite one. It feels like they're downgrading. With that downgrade off the field could see a downgrade on it.

This doesn't feel like a club fit for Super League currently.

I accept that they're doing what they need to to survive. They are in a better position to build for the future. But surely the sport should have bigger clubs in its top division than this in the interim.

This is the whole point.

It's not because it's Salford, it's because we shouldn't have clubs in our supposedly elite division playing in such small grounds. And I'd say the same if it was Bradford moving to Bradford Park Avenue because it would be more packed than Odsal. 

[dboy]

46 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

Did Stuart Littler rob your lunch money as a kid or something? 

The little mouse? No, did he chuff!

Like I'd get robbed by a mouse!

[Morris Wanchuk]

19 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

This is the whole point.

It's not because it's Salford, it's because we shouldn't have clubs in our supposedly elite division playing in such small grounds. And I'd say the same if it was Bradford moving to Bradford Park Avenue because it would be more packed than Odsal. 

I’m more bothered about the fact that Salford have been allowed to operate at this ‘elite level’ without running an academy. If this move allows them to consolidate themselves financially through increased revenues on match days etc and invest in an academy then that’s a massive plus. 

[Tabby]

6 minutes ago, Morris Wanchuk said:

I’m more bothered about the fact that Salford have been allowed to operate at this ‘elite level’ without running an academy. If this move allows them to consolidate themselves financially through increased revenues on match days etc and invest in an academy then that’s a massive plus. 

Wasn’t selected clubs given the go head for academies? 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Tabby

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Morris Wanchuk said:

I’m more bothered about the fact that Salford have been allowed to operate at this ‘elite level’ without running an academy. If this move allows them to consolidate themselves financially through increased revenues on match days etc and invest in an academy then that’s a massive plus. 

Ok let's not bother with any standards then. What's the point? All you have to do is ignore them and when it becomes an issue just say that you're definitely trying now because reasons A, B & C. Job done.

[theswanmcr]

3 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Ok let's not bother with any standards then. What's the point? All you have to do is ignore them and when it becomes an issue just say that you're definitely trying now because reasons A, B & C. Job done.

Problem Is there just isn’t enough clubs that are big enough to really meet the standards.

So you have Huddersfield playing in a lovely big stadium (standards box ticked). In reality they can’t come close to filling it, it’s way too big, looks rubbish on TV and has no atmosphere for paying fans.

Bournemouth played in the football Premier League recently. Tiny stadium for the sport with only 11,000 capacity. Nobody kicked-off that it was a disgrace to the sport.

Back to our sport and Salford potentially play at a 5,000 capacity neat little stadium that will be much more suited to our crowds, have a good atmosphere and look good on TV and everyone loses their mind.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

6 minutes ago, theswanmcr said:

Problem Is there just isn’t enough clubs that are big enough to really meet the standards.

So you have Huddersfield playing in a lovely big stadium (standards box ticked). In reality they can’t come close to filling it, it’s way too big, looks rubbish on TV and has no atmosphere for paying fans.

Bournemouth played in the football Premier League recently. Tiny stadium for the sport with only 11,000 capacity. Nobody kicked-off that it was a disgrace to the sport.

Back to our sport and Salford potentially play at a 5,000 capacity neat little stadium that will be much more suited to our crowds, have a good atmosphere and look good on TV and everyone loses their mind.

When it's just one club in twenty, it's not that big a deal and not noticeable. In fact, it's a bit of a novelty.

When it's several clubs out of twelve, it's a big issue.

I think the PL would be worried if a quarter of the league played in tiny grounds.

[theswanmcr]

12 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

When it's just one club in twenty, it's not that big a deal and not noticeable. In fact, it's a bit of a novelty.

When it's several clubs out of twelve, it's a big issue.

I think the PL would be worried if a quarter of the league played in tiny grounds.

We’re obsessed with the notion of tiny grounds. 

Sticking Salford, Huddersfield and Wakefield in big shiny new - and empty - grounds doesn’t solve anything.

We should be worried that a quarter of the clubs in our elite league are simply not big enough full stop - playing in tiny or oversized grounds doesn’t change that fact.

Edited November 10, 2021 by theswanmcr

[Morris Wanchuk]

41 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Ok let's not bother with any standards then. What's the point? All you have to do is ignore them and when it becomes an issue just say that you're definitely trying now because reasons A, B & C. Job done.

It’s no good having clubs struggling financially in order to play out of shiny stadiums. Even Wigan and Hull are reported to be struggling with the agreements in place at their respective homes. The game isn’t in good health at present especially with the reduced TV income, but there is no reason it can’t prosper with some practical leadership. As an outsider it appears that this move has been forced on Salford but I hope in the long run it stabilises them.

[Scubby]

28 minutes ago, Morris Wanchuk said:

It’s no good having clubs struggling financially in order to play out of shiny stadiums. Even Wigan and Hull are reported to be struggling with the agreements in place at their respective homes. The game isn’t in good health at present especially with the reduced TV income, but there is no reason it can’t prosper with some practical leadership. As an outsider it appears that this move has been forced on Salford but I hope in the long run it stabilises them.

Then let's get Wigan to move to Orrell, Hull to Hull Ionians, Wakefield can go to Dewsbury and Huddersfield can move to Batley. Salford can go to Moor Lane.

We can pitch this to Sky and see if they want to bump the TV back to the previous mark of £40m per year? 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Scubby

[Guest]

1 hour ago, theswanmcr said:

Problem Is there just isn’t enough clubs that are big enough to really meet the standards.

So you have Huddersfield playing in a lovely big stadium (standards box ticked). In reality they can’t come close to filling it, it’s way too big, looks rubbish on TV and has no atmosphere for paying fans.

Bournemouth played in the football Premier League recently. Tiny stadium for the sport with only 11,000 capacity. Nobody kicked-off that it was a disgrace to the sport.

Back to our sport and Salford potentially play at a 5,000 capacity neat little stadium that will be much more suited to our crowds, have a good atmosphere and look good on TV and everyone loses their mind.

Are Bournemouth planning to move to a smaller stadium any time soon? Is any elite division football team planning to downsize? St Johnstone V Hibs in a 3000 stadium would generate a good atmosphere and probably be a great event…..but it doesn’t scream elite level sport. 
 

You seem to assume that Salford will now be getting 5000 in a 5000 stadium  (or even close) when there’s little evidence to suggest they will get anything close to that. This move seems to have little to back it up apart from panic mode and a stroppy response about the AJ Bell being too big. Which to be fair, it is a bit cavernous.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Then let's get Wigan to move to Orrell, Hull to Hull Ionians, Wakefield can go to Dewsbury and Huddersfield can move to Batley. Salford can go to Moor Lane.

We can pitch this to Sky and see if they want to bump the TV back to the previous mark of £40m per year? 

Of course they would mate - the grounds would be full and a better atmosphere. 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, theswanmcr said:

We’re obsessed with the notion of tiny grounds. 

Sticking Salford, Huddersfield and Wakefield in big shiny new - and empty - grounds doesn’t solve anything.

We should be worried that a quarter of the clubs in our elite league are simply not big enough full stop - playing in tiny or oversized grounds doesn’t change that fact.

Again, you're missing the point I'm making.

The point isn't to put small clubs in big ground - it's to have big clubs in big grounds. 

Big clubs in small grounds isn't desirable. Small clubs in small grounds isn't either. The common factor is the small ground. At least in a big ground, there is potential to be a big club. A small ground is not going to make the biggest league bigger.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Again, you're missing the point I'm making.

The point isn't to put small clubs in big ground - it's to have big clubs in big grounds. 

Big clubs in small grounds isn't desirable. Small clubs in small grounds isn't either. The common factor is the small ground. At least in a big ground, there is potential to be a big club. A small ground is not going to make the biggest league bigger.

I think people are deliberately ignoring the fact that SL began in 1996 with the purpose of having an elite division with clubs growing and getting bigger.    After 25 years, having one of those clubs - regardless of who it is- playing in a 5K stadium is a failure. 
Some clubs have got new stadiums and expanded, some haven’t succeeded and some haven’t really tried.  But whatever, it clearly makes no difference.

[M j M]

We need stadia appropriate to the size of the club. Huddersfield and other clubs were marked down for their stadia being too big relative to their support as one of the old licencing criteria and it is a genuine factor. 

There is very little for the sport to gain from clubs playing in vast empty stadia, in fact we know Sky specifically don't like it. Apart from some weird fetish amongst certain fans it's not something that should be encouraged because we can also be pretty certain that it dissuades people from attending too.

None of which is to say that clubs shouldn't be ambitious about growing their crowds. But they also need to be realistic about how important stadium layout and size and atmosphere is to people attending. And like it or not the A J Bell is a failure on several fronts.

I would expect Salford crowds to grow if and when they are playing in a ground which is more suitable to the size of their support. 

[Eddie]

9 hours ago, Morris Wanchuk said:

I’m more bothered about the fact that Salford have been allowed to operate at this ‘elite level’ without running an academy. If this move allows them to consolidate themselves financially through increased revenues on match days etc and invest in an academy then that’s a massive plus. 

It’s probably good that they didn’t, as the RFL would have denied them the right to have one last year anyway. Academies aren’t the be all and end all, if they’re supporting the community game that’s as good as imho.