Jump to content

Salford to move to Moor Lane?


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

...RL clubs, each aspiring to improve their facilities for their supporters, their clubs finances and overall control of their destiny.

I would love it if RL could collectively support this.

I would even more so wish RL supporters would join in that endorsement.

But hey that would a crappy way to run a business."

I get the sentiment of each club needing to strive for ever better standards for themselves and the wider game, and that supporters would endorse that...but you've lost me with the notion that it somehow absolves Salford from running their business in an ethical and fair manner.

We should ignore Salford spending their rent money on players "for the good of the game"??

Tell Fev fans that!

*NOTE - Sisyphus was punished for wrongdoing - what is Salford's punishment for wronging their debts?

Edited by dboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 hours ago, Scubby said:

Yet they have their most expensive squad in years on the playing field? People had a go at Toulouse for cutting their cloth.

Super League should not be allowing a top flight club to play in a Subbuteo 5k stadium. If Salford cannot meet the requirements of a top flight club they should default into the Championship. Who is holding the elite competition to standards here?

When the wedding venue was let in , you can hardly argue against Moor Lane 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

When the wedding venue was let in , you can hardly argue against Moor Lane 

Fair point but it is not right. Wakefield threatened to play at Dewsbury a couple of years ago and I kicked off in the same way so it is not just an anti-Salford rant. If you cannot meet the standards of an elite club you should lose the right to be one. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, idrewthehaggis said:

At times debates on here feel they were written by Sisyphus. Eternally pushing that rock, forever watching it roll back. Eventually everything gets repeated.

Thanks Confirmed for returning to the most important here. For Salford and Wakey, Cas and KR.

All long standing top flight RL clubs, each aspiring to improve their facilities for their supporters, their clubs finances and overall control of their destiny.

I would love it if RL could collectively support this.

I would even more so wish RL supporters would join in that endorsement.

But hey that would a crappy way to run a business."

It should be out of Salford's hands that they can move to a 5k toy town stadium and still be a SL club. Their request should be rejected on the basis that it is not a fit stadium for elite RL.

If Salford want to go to Moor Lane and rebuild it over time then that is their choice. But they should be doing this outside of SL. It was almost 25 years ago that Hunslet and Dewsbury both got denied SL places because they had 4k stadiums. No one back that thought it would be fit for purpose for SL. It is not a new thing.

Edited by Scubby
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Fair point but it is not right. Wakefield threatened to play at Dewsbury a couple of years ago and I kicked off in the same way so it is not just an anti-Salford rant. If you cannot meet the standards of an elite club you should lose the right to be one. 

Should have , too late now , and people wonder why we ( Leigh ) were so upset when licencing came in , and we were overlooked by clubs playing out of dumps with artists impressions 

As I've put on the Wakey thread , this one stand won't suddenly solve their stadium issues , it will be almost empty for most games , apart fro CAS or Leeds 

Edited by GUBRATS
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Should have , too late now , and people wonder why we ( Leigh ) were so upset when licencing came in , and we were overlooked by clubs playing out of dumps with artists impressions 

Yes that was shambolic. We are (nearly) all old enough to remember Framing the Future which focussed on 10k stadiums and seating areas. Bizarrely, that was when the average crowds were much lower than they are today. We have let things slip so badly that it's just do what you like time. 

If SL told Salford City Council straight away that they would not approve Moor Lane in its current state they would have found a solution or funded a rebuild before they moved. That is the role of the sport's governing body - it's like qualifying times for the Olympics. We can't all Eddie the Eagle life anymore.

Edited by Scubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Should have , too late now , and people wonder why we ( Leigh ) were so upset when licencing came in , and we were overlooked by clubs playing out of dumps with artists impressions 

As I've put on the Wakey thread , this one stand won't suddenly solve their stadium issues , it will be almost empty for most games , apart fro CAS or Leeds 

Not really sure what your point is.

Licencing wasn't simply about stadia - you have a nice ground, but you were when licencing happened.

Currently, after 3 home games, Wakey's average attendance is 5300. That's in a crappy ground. In winter. Including v. Toulouse.

You should concentrate on catching up with Fev, rather than crying about us. Otherwise there will be 3 WF postcode teams in SL next year.

Crybaby!

Edited by dboy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dboy said:

Not really sure what your point is.

Licencing wasn't simply about stadia - you have a nice ground, but you were when licencing happened.

Currently, after 3 home games, Wakey's average attendance is 5300. That's in a crappy ground. In winter.

You should concentrate on catching up with Fev, rather than crying about us. Otherwise there will be 3 WF postcode teams in SL next year.

Crybaby!

Just pointing out the facts , 14 years after we saw all the artists impressions , there's still no real improvements , not criticising Wakeys attendances , they aren't great , but also not terrible 

Feel free to insult if you like , it's you that looks more childish 

Edited by GUBRATS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GUBRATS said:

Just pointing out the facts , 14 years after we saw all the artists impressions , there's still no real improvements , not criticising Wakeys attendances , they are great , but also not terrible 

Feel free to insult if you like , it's you that looks more childish 

If you act like a cry baby, you'll get called a cry baby.

Wakefield Trinity's problems in improving their ground are very well documented - virtually 100% have been out of the club's hands.

Now that a certain council leader has gone, and the new regime have been more willing to hold the developer to account, there is finally tangible progress (we wait with baited breath!).

And you did moan about Wakey's attendances with your silly "it will be empty for most games" comment.

Grow up.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dboy said:

If you act like a cry baby, you'll get called a cry baby.

Wakefield Trinity's problems in improving their ground are very well documented - virtually 100% have been out of the club's hands.

Now that a certain council leader has gone, and the new regime have been more willing to hold the developer to account, there is finally tangible progress (we wait with baited breath!).

And you did moan about Wakey's attendances with your silly "it will be empty for most games" comment.

Grow up.

Yes , I fully understand how fortunate my club was in getting a modern facility , which is also why I have the opinion that even when Wakey get this new stand it won't have more than 500 fans in it apart from the visits of Leeds and CAS , time will tell wether I'm right or wrong , when it gets built , which I hope it will , but as I've said , it would be better with bigger terraced stand , and a smaller seated one opposite it 

I'll not engage further with you on this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

...it would be better with bigger terraced stand , and a smaller seated one opposite it 

I'll not engage further with you on this 

It will house the corporate facilities needed for running an attractive, 365 days per year, revenue providing facility, as well as the obvious match day provision.

It will host the media suites, medical facilities, and changing rooms.

It will also hold the seating needed to meet (in this case exceed), minimum standards.

The North stand will be re-terraced and the West stand will have the "temporary" stands on from the East stand re-build.

The ground will be significantly improved.

If we are getting 5K+ in our current hole, we'll get more when it's refurbed.

Winning a few more games would help - but maybe the extra revenue in future years will help that anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Scubby said:

It should be out of Salford's hands that they can move to a 5k toy town stadium and still be a SL club. Their request should be rejected on the basis that it is not a fit stadium for elite RL.

If Salford want to go to Moor Lane and rebuild it over time then that is their choice. But they should be doing this outside of SL. It was almost 25 years ago that Hunslet and Dewsbury both got denied SL places because they had 4k stadiums. No one back that thought it would be fit for purpose for SL. It is not a new thing.

Out of interest can Moor Lane be improved that much capacity wise? If it could would Salford City not have stayed?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

people wonder why we ( Leigh ) were so upset when licencing came in , and we were overlooked by clubs playing out of dumps with artists impressions 

Was it because you completely misunderstood how the licences were scored and decided that all points were based on if you had a ground where priority was given to women's football and wedding hires?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Was it because you completely misunderstood how the licences were scored and decided that all points were based on if you had a ground where priority was given to women's football and wedding hires?

In fairness, there was an unquantifiable incumbency bias, but that doesn't take away from your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Phil W said:

Out of interest can Moor Lane be improved that much capacity wise? If it could would Salford City not have stayed?

Whatever the ceiling for expansion is, you have to assume it is less than the AJ Bell currently - and likely significantly less at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Scubby said:

Would Dewsbury be allowed into SL if they won the Championship? I believe Whitehaven were told they would not be eligible for promotion when they were closing in on the play offs last year. By whom was that and what was the criteria?

Well I've been to Dewsbury a few times obviously, and it's definitely a better viewing experience than Wakefield's ground.

But, that's by the by, the obvious answer to your question is that the RFL make it up as they go along. The rules that apparently apply to Dewsbury or Whitehaven were ignored when London went into SL and played out of a glorified sports club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

In fairness, there was an unquantifiable incumbency bias, but that doesn't take away from your point.

The whole process was weird and the scoring was strange - and then they had to cover for the fact that had they enforced the rules properly they'd have had about five teams (and all of those placed in the league below did not meet the criteria either) - but it never was a simple as, "How good is your stadium?"

With regards to Salford, I do find it a bit weird that Salford City, with the lowest home average in the entire Football League, seem to believe that they are a big enough draw to overcome the disadvantages of the A J Bell that have seen it become a millstone for Salford and a constant hurdle for Sale.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The whole process was weird and the scoring was strange - and then they had to cover for the fact that had they enforced the rules properly they'd have had about five teams (and all of those placed in the league below did not meet the criteria either) - but it never was a simple as, "How good is your stadium?"

With regards to Salford, I do find it a bit weird that Salford City, with the lowest home average in the entire Football League, seem to believe that they are a big enough draw to overcome the disadvantages of the A J Bell that have seen it become a millstone for Salford and a constant hurdle for Sale.

The difference between Salford City and the others is that they can draw Man City, Liverpool or United etc. at home in the cup and fill the place. I suppose they can also have pre-season games against those clubs. There are also some huge clubs floating around League 1 (and the Championship) should they get that far. Clubs like Crewe, Burton Albion and Peterborough have shown that is possible in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phil W said:

Out of interest can Moor Lane be improved that much capacity wise? If it could would Salford City not have stayed?

They are jigsaw kit stands some of them so I suppose they can be dismantled and replaced with a bigger version. The location is also not the best area of the city.

The difference is one club is looking up and showing ambition the other is treading water and trying to avoid going under. That doesn't mean, however, that SL can just give them a free pass to play at a toy town stadium. The league has to show ambition too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Scubby said:

They are jigsaw kit stands some of them so I suppose they can be dismantled and replaced with a bigger version. The location is also not the best area of the city.

The difference is one club is looking up and showing ambition the other is treading water and trying to avoid going under. That doesn't mean, however, that SL can just give them a free pass to play at a toy town stadium. The league has to show ambition too.

Conversely, one club is financial doped up to the eyeballs trebling Scottish Premier League strikers’ wages (who was also playing competitive European football) on some of the smallest professional crowds in the four leagues and the other is a club cutting their cloth accordingly and trying to live within their means. The latter isn’t glamorous and it’s not exactly going to fill columns in the media but I know who who I’d feel safer with in out of the two. 

Edited by Jughead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The whole process was weird and the scoring was strange - and then they had to cover for the fact that had they enforced the rules properly they'd have had about five teams (and all of those placed in the league below did not meet the criteria either) - but it never was a simple as, "How good is your stadium?"

With regards to Salford, I do find it a bit weird that Salford City, with the lowest home average in the entire Football League, seem to believe that they are a big enough draw to overcome the disadvantages of the A J Bell that have seen it become a millstone for Salford and a constant hurdle for Sale.

I do believe if they enforced the criteria at the start we could have had a stronger comp now with more compliant clubs, the expansion to 14 was the killer for me, it should only have go to that number when all clubs met all criteria..  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Scubby said:

They are jigsaw kit stands some of them so I suppose they can be dismantled and replaced with a bigger version. The location is also not the best area of the city.

The difference is one club is looking up and showing ambition the other is treading water and trying to avoid going under. That doesn't mean, however, that SL can just give them a free pass to play at a toy town stadium. The league has to show ambition too.

That would be my concern they move to Moor Lane with a reduced capacity but they hit a ceiling given limitations.

If there was a plan to show how they can grow including the stadium then it might be different. I get the club needs to be viable to start with but as has been said they are a Super League club and in five years time when they want to improve infrastructure again do they go looking for another stadium?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Has anyone changed their mind one bit after reading the 27 pages of this thread? 

That's never been the point of the RL forum. It's purpose it to let off steam about your own bias, preferences and prejudice.

It's a chance for everyone to not "be their age!"

It's nice that all the tosh and nonsense comes out into the daylight now and again, though the pity is it doesn't go up in flames in the sunshine.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.