Salford to move to Moor Lane?

[theswanmcr]

8 hours 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.

No I’m not missing the point - I’m saying exactly the same thing! Agree that we need big clubs in big grounds.

In reality Salford are not and probably never will be that - and my point is that this isn’t intrinsically their fault.

We are one of a number of clubs who are just not at the level of Leeds, Saints, Catalans etc. A big ground hasn’t helped us. So realistically you play at a ground at your level - if this means others overtake us then so be it eg Toulouse

 

[Damien]

10 hours 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.

It's not just grounds though, and there is just as much criticism of clubs with grounds that are too big. Let's face it, the AJ Bell isn't a big ground and looks fine with 5-6,000 people but Salford just did a poor job of filling it and could even get those crowds.

It really is the full package of what a club brings that people look at when clubs get criticised. That is why a club like Castleford doesn't get anywhere near the same criticism as those you cite despite playing in a poorer ground than Salford or Huddersfield. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Damien

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, M j M said:

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. 

I agree, particularly on the Huddersfield point, but it is a challenge when we are highlighting that a 12k ground is too big for an SL club. 

I think the point is that that club should be too small for SL. 

I can see how this can work for Salford, and my view is that clubs live or die by their decisions but the biggest frustration for SL is that if they did get 5k averages they should really be right at the bottom end of the table and eventually ousted as other clubs overtake them, but we seem to struggle to get clubs to overtake the likes of Salford, Wakefield, Leigh etc. 

Hopefully Toulouse will be one, but as long as we have a really week bottom end I fear people will keep looking at 10 teams as a solution. 

[Stanley30]

12 hours ago, dboy said:

No.

You won't own the ground.

That's not pedantry.

It's a fact.

F.A.C.T.

Love it when people do this

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I agree, particularly on the Huddersfield point, but it is a challenge when we are highlighting that a 12k ground is too big for an SL club. 

I think the point is that that club should be too small for SL. 

I can see how this can work for Salford, and my view is that clubs live or die by their decisions but the biggest frustration for SL is that if they did get 5k averages they should really be right at the bottom end of the table and eventually ousted as other clubs overtake them, but we seem to struggle to get clubs to overtake the likes of Salford, Wakefield, Leigh etc. 

Hopefully Toulouse will be one, but as long as we have a really week bottom end I fear people will keep looking at 10 teams as a solution. 

Yeah exactly. It's not as if Salford played at the Etihad and had 3k rattling around in there. A 12K stadium is pretty modest and if a club can't even half fill it, then it's not out of order to ask why this consistently happens. 

Most of all though, as you point out, there should be other clubs waiting to knock them off their perch.... sadly there isn't. 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

10 hours 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.

Huddersfield were not required to build a 25,000 seater stadium, it is too big for them, it’s probably a more suitable size for Huddersfield FC but I have no idea whether they fill it or not. But that still doesn’t change the fact that a 5000 capacity ground is too small for Super League.

I’m sure there were people on here saying York’s new stadium was too small for Super League and that holds 8500. A 12,000 capacity AJ Bell Stadium really shouldn’t be too big for a Super League club, if it is the answer is to increase crowds not decrease capacity by moving to a smaller stadium imo. 

Anyone who thinks Salford will be playing at a sold out capacity ground week in week out is deluded. Salford’s attendances will drop with this move. 

My opinion is they are preparing Salford to be a Championship club and cutting costs accordingly, obviously nobody at Salford is going to come out and say this while they are still in Super League.

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Yeah exactly. It's not as if Salford played at the Etihad and had 3k rattling around in there. A 12K stadium is pretty modest and if a club can't even half fill it, then it's not out of order to ask why this consistently happens. 

Most of all though, as you point out, there should be other clubs waiting to knock them off their perch.... sadly there isn't. 

But the salary cap doesn't help in that either. If a club like Leigh or Toulouse come up and want to spend big to build a better team than those towards the bottom of SL then they should be allowed to do so. The cream should be allowed to rise to the top. As is any club coming up has too many inherent disadvantages to overcome with the systems we have in place.

[Robthegasman]

11 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Huddersfield were not required to build a 25,000 seater stadium, it is too big for them, it’s probably a more suitable size for Huddersfield FC but I have no idea whether they fill it or not. But that still doesn’t change the fact that a 5000 capacity ground is too small for Super League.

I’m sure there were people on here saying York’s new stadium was too small for Super League and that holds 8500. A 12,000 capacity AJ Bell Stadium really shouldn’t be too big for a Super League club, if it is the answer is to increase crowds not decrease capacity by moving to a smaller stadium imo. 

Anyone who thinks Salford will be playing at a sold out capacity ground week in week out is deluded. Salford’s attendances will drop with this move. 

My opinion is they are preparing Salford to be a Championship club and cutting costs accordingly, obviously nobody at Salford is going to come out and say this while they are still in Super League.

I myself am not a Salford fan but you are probably right that Salford are preparing for life as a Championship club…or whatever it eventually becomes.

The fact is that Moor Lane is simply not a Super League stadium. And Salford will probably not week in week out fill that stadium,might be a full house if Wigan and St Helens play them but I think that will be about it.And in my opinion a small stadium with probably very limited scope for maximising income will see that their best players will simply get cherry picked by bigger clubs with bigger revenue avenues.

 And in the end they will simply not be able to sustain an elite Super League place.

 And let’s be Frank open and honest here.

Salford made their biggest mistake by letting The Willows go,especially when you see clubs like Wakefield and Castleford play in stadiums that frankly are appalling.They should have over say a 5-10 year period refurbished that stadium bit by bit.
 

 

[theswanmcr]

7 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

ISalford made their biggest mistake by letting The Willows go,especially when you see clubs like Wakefield and Castleford play in stadiums that frankly are appalling.They should have over say a 5-10 year period refurbished that stadium bit by bit.
 

Talk about the benefit of hindsight!

Have said this before but here goes… RFL wanted minimum standards for SL - at the time everyone was looking at shiny new stadiums  to replace 100 year grounds. Salford we’re one of the first to start this - then money problems, Red City Developments going under and the troubles start. In the end we did get a new stadium though.

The likes of Cas and Wakey put a billion paper plans in, constantly get dispensation and are happily still today playing in their original delapidated grounds. Basically they got away with it and good luck to them for doing so.

Many things to bash Salford for - Koukash, academies etc - if you want but the stadium isn’t one of them. We tried to do the right thing and in the end it is those that did nothing that have come up smelling of (white) roses.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, theswanmcr said:

Talk about the benefit of hindsight!

Have said this before but here goes… RFL wanted minimum standards for SL - at the time everyone was looking at shiny new stadiums  to replace 100 year grounds. Salford we’re one of the first to start this - then money problems, Red City Developments going under and the troubles start. In the end we did get a new stadium though.

The likes of Cas and Wakey put a billion paper plans in, constantly get dispensation and are happily still today playing in their original delapidated grounds. Basically they got away with it and good luck to them for doing so.

Many things to bash Salford for - Koukash, academies etc - if you want but the stadium isn’t one of them. We tried to do the right thing and in the end it is those that did nothing that have come up smelling of (white) roses.

Well that certainly wasn't Salford's fault. They were trying to do the right thing and it has ended up costing them. 

But the fault here lies with the inconsistency in applying the rules, which is just totally RL.

[sweaty craiq]

SL/RFL are a disgrace. Wakey and Cas have been upgrading facilities for 20+ years, clubs outside SL were forced to upgrade facilities to be considered and clubs were denied access with better facilities than are being accepted today.

Salford have taken a gamble and its paid off. Get rid of debt via a CVA then dont pay it when due because there was no relegation whilst still chucking money at a squad, a strategy still employed and successful in 2021 I understand!! Bradford were denied funds and had points deducted which sent them on a downward spiral they have still to recover from, few would disagree Bradford are a much bigger loss to SL than Salford.

The sport has no morals and creates policy on the run - shambles.

[steve oates]

13 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. 

Salford's academy never really worked, what little genuine local talent looked to join academies such as Wigan and didn't Kallum Watkins go off to Leeds.  Didn't Koukash close the academy because it didn't produce much talent as was a massive minus on the books?

[steve oates]

1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:

SL/RFL are a disgrace. Wakey and Cas have been upgrading facilities for 20+ years, clubs outside SL were forced to upgrade facilities to be considered and clubs were denied access with better facilities than are being accepted today.

The sport has no morals and creates policy on the run - shambles.

Wakey and Cas suffered from the council saying they could not give help to both clubs (and consequently Fev) because they could not or maybe would not provide the money. Wakey were robbed of the Newmarket ground as well. 

"Disgrace"....  "Shambles"......   Easy to shout that when Leigh simply had better "pot luck"......

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, sweaty craiq said:

SL/RFL are a disgrace. Wakey and Cas have been upgrading facilities for 20+ years, clubs outside SL were forced to upgrade facilities to be considered and clubs were denied access with better facilities than are being accepted today.

Salford have taken a gamble and its paid off. Get rid of debt via a CVA then dont pay it when due because there was no relegation whilst still chucking money at a squad, a strategy still employed and successful in 2021 I understand!! Bradford were denied funds and had points deducted which sent them on a downward spiral they have still to recover from, few would disagree Bradford are a much bigger loss to SL than Salford.

The sport has no morals and creates policy on the run - shambles.

If I may summarise: Its not fair, we didn't get our own way.

[Damien]

21 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Salford's academy never really worked, what little genuine local talent looked to join academies such as Wigan and didn't Kallum Watkins go off to Leeds.  Didn't Koukash close the academy because it didn't produce much talent as was a massive minus on the books?

But they did sign players that slipped through the cracks, the Stef Ratchfords and Ritchie Mylers of this world.

I do think all SL clubs should have academies and should be looking to improve the player pool in their areas. Funding should certainly be tied to this. Ray Cashmere made a very positive post about 84 partner schools in the GM area. That's great. A club like Salford should be looking to build on this and work with the community game to bring these kids through. Yes its a long slog but it needs doing. Yes some players may go elsewhere but the game as a whole needs to significantly widen the player pool. This would certainly help with crowds too by getting more people interested in the club and game.

A SL club should be the top of the pyramid in their area and if SL clubs with all their funding aren't doing this then realistically no one else is. This is especially so with the way finances are at the RFL at the moment. If they aren't then you have to question their value to SL and the value the game is getting for the funding they receive. This is especially so if they are failing on other measures like crowds etc.

Edited November 11, 2021 by Damien

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

But they did sign players that slipped through the cracks, the Stef Ratchfords and Ritchie Mylers of this world.

I do think all SL clubs should have academies and should be looking to improve the player pool in their areas. Funding should certainly be tied to this. Ray Cashmere made a very positive post about 84 partner schools in the GM area. That's great. A club like Salford should be looking to build on this and work with the community game to bring these kids through. Yes its a long slog but it needs doing. Yes some players may go elsewhere but the game as a whole needs to significantly widen the player pool. This would certainly help with crowds too by getting more people interested in the club and game.

A SL club should be the top of the pyramid in their area and if SL clubs with all their funding aren't doing this then realistically no one else is. This is especially so with the way finances are at the RFL at the moment. If they aren't then you have to question their value to SL and the value the game is getting for the funding they receive. This is especially so if they are failing on other measures like crowds etc.

Agreed. I don't think the response to not developing enough players is to scrap the Academy. 

[whatmichaelsays]

14 minutes ago, steve oates said:

Wakey and Cas suffered from the council saying they could not give help to both clubs (and consequently Fev) because they could not or maybe would not provide the money. Wakey were robbed of the Newmarket ground as well. 

"Disgrace"....  "Shambles"......   Easy to shout that when Leigh simply had better "pot luck"......

There are a lot of selective memories going on when it comes to how clubs have come about their new stadiums. 

Those stadiums that relied on a supportive local authority or one with a telecoms company that it was able to sell-off? Good for them. 

Those stadiums that relied on big supermarket developments? It would only have taken a delay of a couple of years, getting caught up in the midst of the global financial crisis and the "big four" moving their business strategies away from big "hypermarket" models, for those projects to be in serious jeopardy. 

People ask "why don't Wakefield/Castleford do what St Helens or Warrington did?" and the truth is, they did - they did exactly what Warrington and St Helens did. They sought developments through the use of Section 106 but, for different reasons, the relevant developments fell through. In the case of Castleford, it was an issue of timing, the global financial crisis and the collapse of "big box" retail developments and, in the case of Wakefield, it was down to the council poorly policing the planning condition and leaving a gaping loophole to get out of the obligation. 

Had Tesco pulled the plug on their hypermarket model a few years earlier, it's not unfair to suggest that the new grounds at St Helens and Warrington may not have happened when they did. 

[Saint Toppy]

12 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

There are a lot of selective memories going on when it comes to how clubs have come about their new stadiums. 

Those stadiums that relied on a supportive local authority or one with a telecoms company that it was able to sell-off? Good for them. 

Those stadiums that relied on big supermarket developments? It would only have taken a delay of a couple of years, getting caught up in the midst of the global financial crisis and the "big four" moving their business strategies away from big "hypermarket" models, for those projects to be in serious jeopardy. 

People ask "why don't Wakefield/Castleford do what St Helens or Warrington did?" and the truth is, they did - they did exactly what Warrington and St Helens did. They sought developments through the use of Section 106 but, for different reasons, the relevant developments fell through. In the case of Castleford, it was an issue of timing, the global financial crisis and the collapse of "big box" retail developments and, in the case of Wakefield, it was down to the council poorly policing the planning condition and leaving a gaping loophole to get out of the obligation. 

Had Tesco pulled the plug on their hypermarket model a few years earlier, it's not unfair to suggest that the new grounds at St Helens and Warrington may not have happened when they did. 

Can't speak for Warrington but what you've written about Saints is complete & utter guff !!!

Tesco played absolutely no part in the Saints Stadium, in fact they don't even own the land their store sits on. The land was owned by Langtree Developments. Saints bought the parcel of land their stadium sits on directly off Langtree and paid for the building of the stadium entirely out of their own money from of the sale of Knowlsley Rd. to developers and from directors loans. Not a single penny of council money went towards the stadium either (though they did fund the construction of the new Steve Prescott footbridge linking the site to the town centre.

[whatmichaelsays]

8 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Can't speak for Warrington but what you've written about Saints is complete & utter guff !!!

Tesco played absolutely no part in the Saints Stadium, in fact they don't even own the land their store sits on. The land was owned by Langtree Developments. Saints bought the parcel of land their stadium sits on directly off Langtree and paid for the building of the stadium entirely out of their own money from of the sale of Knowlsley Rd. to developers and from directors loans. Not a single penny of council money went towards the stadium either (though they did fund the construction of the new Steve Prescott footbridge linking the site to the town centre.

You sure about that? The below makes it sound like Tesco's involvement was pretty significant. 

https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/2201985.mp-warns-morrisons-over-objection-to-stadium-plans/

Quote

 

He said funding for the new stadium would be made up of contributions from Saints, the North West Regional Development Agency, Tesco and St Helens Council.

But the MP added these funds depend on all three interlinked planning applications - housing at Saints' Knowsley Road ground, the current Chalon Way Tesco being transformed for shops, and the stadium/Tesco development - being granted planning permission.

 

As does this line: https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/archive/council-backs-25m-stadium-21-05-2008/

Quote

The planning application was compiled by developer Langtree, Tesco and housebuilder Taylor Wimpey.

It's also quite common for retailers not to own their property. I stand by my point. If the St Helens stadium project was just a couple of years later, when supermarkets were changing their business model and house builders paused new projects, the development may well have been very different. 

[Angelic Cynic]

24 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Can't speak for Warrington but what you've written about Saints is complete & utter guff !!!

Tesco played absolutely no part in the Saints Stadium, in fact they don't even own the land their store sits on. The land was owned by Langtree Developments. Saints bought the parcel of land their stadium sits on directly off Langtree and paid for the building of the stadium entirely out of their own money from of the sale of Knowlsley Rd. to developers and from directors loans. Not a single penny of council money went towards the stadium either (though they did fund the construction of the new Steve Prescott footbridge linking the site to the town centre.

Not a single penny.Six million pounds - according to this

https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/8285967.developers-set-out-14-month-timetable-for-new-saints-stadium/

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, steve oates said:

Wakey and Cas suffered from the council saying they could not give help to both clubs (and consequently Fev) because they could not or maybe would not provide the money. Wakey were robbed of the Newmarket ground as well. 

"Disgrace"....  "Shambles"......   Easy to shout that when Leigh simply had better "pot luck"......

Having frequented their grounds HP 2006 was better then than they are now - and it was badly dated. To remind folk LSV cost NOTHING to the council to build, Dewsbury and Hunslet were denied entry, whilst Leigh were told to get to 3500 covered seats to be considered in 2001.

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

But they did sign players that slipped through the cracks, the Stef Ratchfords and Ritchie Mylers of this world.

Ratchford is a Wigan lad and Myler was stolen from Widnes 

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

Ratchford is a Wigan lad and Myler was stolen from Widnes 

I know, hence I said slipped through the cracks.

[Saint Toppy]

59 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

You sure about that? The below makes it sound like Tesco's involvement was pretty significant. 

https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/2201985.mp-warns-morrisons-over-objection-to-stadium-plans/

As does this line: https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/archive/council-backs-25m-stadium-21-05-2008/

It's also quite common for retailers not to own their property. I stand by my point. If the St Helens stadium project was just a couple of years later, when supermarkets were changing their business model and house builders paused new projects, the development may well have been very different. 

That story was from 2008 and a far cry from the reality of the actual development.

When Saints first made the decision to leave Knowsley Rd they explored multiple options for the stadium, not least the funding of it. When they decided upon the site, discussions were taking place as the 2008 story alluded to regarding funding. But the difficulties in getting all the funding in place from 3rd parties then meant Saints decided to go down the self-funding option. The primary contributor to this was Mike Coleman who guaranteed the loans to the club for the shortfall between the KR land sale and the stadium new build costs, including the cost of buying the land (Mike Coleman eventually joined the board of Directors in 2010).

The £6M from the council was for the new Steve Prescott Footbridge (not part of the stadium) and the £5M from the NWDA was for the ground remediation for the entire site, not just the stadium land. The former United Glass site was dangerously polluted from things like lead and arsenic and unfit for use for anything. I worked for the Contractor Birse, who built the link road in the early 90's through the site, and the contamination was one of the main contributors to the cost of the new road doubling.

The final parcels of land on the UG site are only just being developed now over a decade later. They started the site clearance just a few weeks ago in preparation for further developments.

[Kirmonds pouch]

If I were Salford I'd go the full way, re-brand as Manchester and try and get a gig here at the Manchester City Academy stadium, Academy!!!!

I know it's not in Salford but then what is these days and of course it may not be available or far too expensive, I don't even know who owns it, is it the council or the club?. However it's modern, central to Manchester, well served by public transport and parking. It holds 7,000, perfect for a club like Salford.

I know nothing about Manchester politics but is there any reason this couldn't happen, no sarcasm please, I'm just wondering?

Edited November 11, 2021 by Kirmonds pouch