Salford to move to Moor Lane?

[Red Willow]

The site of Ambrose Barlow School would be a great place. It's central Swinton, not far from Station Road, East Lancs with great transport links.

That's dream land of course.

At best Salford may get 5,000 fans, they will never be a 10,000 fans side. Too much else in the city.

 

[Robthegasman]

7 minutes ago, Red Willow said:

The site of Ambrose Barlow School would be a great place. It's central Swinton, not far from Station Road, East Lancs with great transport links.

That's dream land of course.

At best Salford may get 5,000 fans, they will never be a 10,000 fans side. Too much else in the city.

 

I agree it would be an ideal venue to build a stadium.

But two big issues.

1 It was formerly an education venue and it is very hard to gain permission to change either the venue or land for alternative use.

2 Residential area.Residents would oppose it very strongly and the opposition would be too great,and as such they would win the day and any plans would end up being quashed.

Realistically Moor Lane is the only place Salford can play at.But as a non Salford fan myself I don’t think it is really the best place for them because of the size of the stadium and it is not Super League standard certainly capacity wise.

[Jughead]

What is a Super League standard stadium in any sense? We’ve had London Broncos playing at a venue that wouldn’t look out of place at League One level, Wakefield and Cas have decrypted stadia with relatively poor facilities and most playing out of rented stadia anyway. 

A 5,000 (approx) capacity for Salford isn’t a terrible move. Moor Lane isn’t the most aesthetically pleasing but it’s close to the pitch and being quite full, should generate a decent atmosphere. The issue I have is if Salford wanted to expand, they’re really stuck. 

[gingerjon]

17 minutes ago, Jughead said:

What is a Super League standard stadium in any sense?

https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/2022-operational-rules-tiers-1-3/index.html#p=17

and

https://secure.rugby-league.com/ign_docs/FACILITYSTANDARDS2016 final PDF.pdf

Edited March 24, 2022 by gingerjon

[Scubby]

16 minutes ago, Jughead said:

What is a Super League standard stadium in any sense? We’ve had London Broncos playing at a venue that wouldn’t look out of place at League One level, Wakefield and Cas have decrypted stadia with relatively poor facilities and most playing out of rented stadia anyway. 

A 5,000 (approx) capacity for Salford isn’t a terrible move. Moor Lane isn’t the most aesthetically pleasing but it’s close to the pitch and being quite full, should generate a decent atmosphere. The issue I have is if Salford wanted to expand, they’re really stuck. 

They should be told no outright if they want to be a SL club. London should have been told no - that was an embarrassment and meant we had 1k crowds in SL for some games.

If the game has any ambition to regularly average 10k crowds across its competition - every could has to be able to play its part. Salford can't bank the SL money for being an elite club and play at a tiny Subbuteo stadium to save cash. They are either an elite club or a Championship club. The leaders of our game need to grow some and drive the sport forwards. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Scubby

[Jughead]

5 minutes ago, Scubby said:

They should be told no outright if they want to be a SL club. London should have been told no - that was an embarrassment and meant we had 1k crowds in SL for some games.

If the game has any ambition to regularly average 10k crowds across its competition - every could has to be able to play its part. Salford can't bank the SL money for being an elite club and play at a tiny Subbuteo stadium to save cash. They are either an elite club or a Championship club. The leaders of our game need to grow some and drive the sport forwards. 

That four team competition based purely on crowds alone would be horrible. Thankfully, we don’t base clubs off crowd figures alone. 

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Scubby said:

They should be told no outright if they want to be a SL club.

Have a look at the minimum requirements and tell me which ones that Moor Lane doesn't meet.

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, gingerjon said:

Have a look at the minimum requirements and tell me which ones that Moor Lane doesn't meet.

This has Nigel Wood's crumby paws all over it on his big 3x8s sell. 

How can a sport go from insisting clubs have 10k stadiums and issuing official warnings 12 years ago, to letting London play at a Wedding Venue and Salford in a Play Mobile toy ground? It is all down to leadership and the tail wagging the dog. We get what we deserve. 

In 2009 we tried to enforce 12k stadiums for licensing not 10k.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/7138760.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/jul/21/super-league-salford-celtic-crusaders-rugby

Back when the game had some backbone. 

Wigan are having problems with Wigan Athletic at the moment. I think if they can get a 2k temporary stand behind the posts they can move in at Orrell and get 5k sell outs every week. They can also keep all the money from the pie van. It is weak and damaging.

You are as strong as your leadership.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Scubby said:

This has Nigel Wood's crumby paws all over it on his big 3x8s sell. 

How can a sport go from insisting clubs have 10k stadiums and issuing official warnings 12 years ago, to letting London play at a Wedding Venue and Salford in a Play Mobile toy ground? It is all down to leadership and the tail wagging the dog. We get what we deserve. 

In 2009 we tried to enforce 12k stadiums for licensing not 10k.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/7138760.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/jul/21/super-league-salford-celtic-crusaders-rugby

Back when the game had some backbone. 

Wigan are having problems with Wigan Athletic at the moment. I think if they can get a 2k temporary stand behind the posts they can move in at Orrell and get 5k sell outs every week. They can also keep all the money from the pie van. It is weak and damaging.

You are as strong as your leadership.

I don't really disagree with you but those are the standards and, yes, they came in when it was decided that the future of the game was based on focusing on a handful of middle level teams to the exclusion of all else.

And now we see the logical outcome of that. A weaker and weaker League 1 and an elite competition that is struggling to grow in any meaningful way.

[Scubby]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I don't really disagree with you but those are the standards and, yes, they came in when it was decided that the future of the game was based on focusing on a handful of middle level teams to the exclusion of all else.

And now we see the logical outcome of that. A weaker and weaker League 1 and an elite competition that is struggling to grow in any meaningful way.

But it can change if the leadership is there. Wakefield nearly went Dewsbury a couple of years ago - do we say no or just amend the PDF to 4k with 1500 seats? How is it so difficult to set aspirational minimum standards? 

Toulouse have moved in with Stade Toulousain with the ambition to get regular five figure crowds. They should have just gone to the local municipal 5k stadium 6 miles out of the city and blown their whole budget on staying up in SL. 

Castleford's main stand actually only holds 1500 seats. It has broken the minimum standards for the last 6 years according to the document you shared. Yet Whitehaven were denied the right to promotion if they got there in 2021 on the same criteria.

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Scubby

[Dave T]

One of the worst elements of the licensing era is the complete fixation we have around facilities and perception to the tv audience. Often we overstate these points to suit our own arguments. 

In reality, clubs with good facilities should be able to offer a better proposition to customers and benefit from increased crowds and income, and therefore be able to run a stronger club. I don't have too much issue with Wakefield playing in a dump, but it should be something that is a millstone around their neck that stops them competing, and therefore they fall to their natural level.

However, there are two elements at play. Firstly, facilities is not proving to be the silver bullet in terms of crowd numbers. Cas for example have been able to deliver solid crowds, better than some teams in far better facilities. This belief that good grounds = good crowds is flawed. 

Secondly, the restrictive Salary Cap has helped to keep the clubs with lower incomes competitive, when in reality a club wit a turnover of £7-10m should be blowing teams with a turnover of £4m out of the water, but they can only spend the same amounts. We do see the richer teams have some benefits as they are generally the clubs players want to be at, but the cap does create a spread. 

The likes of Cas and Wakey have shown that they can keep competing with terrible facilities, and good luck to them, but a large part of that is the artificial suppression of spend at the top level. I think it is important that we allow clubs to be aspirational and push their spending if they have the infrastructure in place and the income being generated.

I don't think we necessarily need to go down the route of excluding teams from P&R, but we should be creating rules and an environment that makes it harder for these to compete.

[Charlie]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

One of the worst elements of the licensing era is the complete fixation we have around facilities and perception to the tv audience. Often we overstate these points to suit our own arguments. 

In reality, clubs with good facilities should be able to offer a better proposition to customers and benefit from increased crowds and income, and therefore be able to run a stronger club. I don't have too much issue with Wakefield playing in a dump, but it should be something that is a millstone around their neck that stops them competing, and therefore they fall to their natural level.

However, there are two elements at play. Firstly, facilities is not proving to be the silver bullet in terms of crowd numbers. Cas for example have been able to deliver solid crowds, better than some teams in far better facilities. This belief that good grounds = good crowds is flawed. 

Secondly, the restrictive Salary Cap has helped to keep the clubs with lower incomes competitive, when in reality a club wit a turnover of £7-10m should be blowing teams with a turnover of £4m out of the water, but they can only spend the same amounts. We do see the richer teams have some benefits as they are generally the clubs players want to be at, but the cap does create a spread. 

The likes of Cas and Wakey have shown that they can keep competing with terrible facilities, and good luck to them, but a large part of that is the artificial suppression of spend at the top level. I think it is important that we allow clubs to be aspirational and push their spending if they have the infrastructure in place and the income being generated.

I don't think we necessarily need to go down the route of excluding teams from P&R, but we should be creating rules and an environment that makes it harder for these to compete.

Moor lane isn’t a bad little ground and from the people I’ve spoke to they reckon you could get to 8-9k. With more corporate felicities. As a Salford fan I’d be happy if we could get something like that. It alll comes down to money though so we will have to see.

[Henson Park Old Firm]

7 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Moor lane isn’t a bad little ground and from the people I’ve spoke to they reckon you could get to 8-9k. With more corporate felicities. As a Salford fan I’d be happy if we could get something like that. It alll comes down to money though so we will have to see.

It dies look very neat  

[dealwithit]

I like Moor Lane. It’s tidy. 

[DI Keith Fowler]

1 hour ago, dealwithit said:

I like Moor Lane. It’s tidy. 

I think if they do it right it could actually be a very shrewd move. There's more room than you think around some of the stands. I was looking at the satellite view previously and it looks very tight, but when you move to streetview and look along each of the long stands there's space to expand. You can build up and allow a tunnel under the stand for access to the ends, if you did that you could go right to the fence line.

[theswanmcr]

On 22/03/2022 at 16:38, 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?

No one is… and that’s where the problem lies, not with Salford or any other individual club.

Salford are cutting their cloth accordingly. It is not their decision to make as to whether this move means they should or shouldn’t be in SL with a stadium if that capacity.

[Scubby]

Just now, theswanmcr said:

No one is… and that’s where the problem lies, not with Salford or any other individual club.

Salford are cutting their cloth accordingly. It is not their decision to make as to whether this move means they should or shouldn’t be in SL with a stadium if that capacity.

I have no ill will against Salford, I wish them well. I was just as ###### off when they allowed London to play at a glorified hockey club - it is embarrassing for the elite competition. If you keep peeling back basic requirements then you will have clubs feeling that is the bar they have to reach and cut their cloth.

I mentioned Castleford. They have one seating stand of 1500 - which is 500 short of even these #### poor minimum standards of 5k with 2k seats - yet it has just been allow to fly for 10+ years. Yet clubs like Whitehaven and Dewsbury would technically be denied promotion because they have less that 2k seats. It is a bloody free for all leadership fight to the bottom.

[Toby Chopra]

27 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I think if they do it right it could actually be a very shrewd move. There's more room than you think around some of the stands. I was looking at the satellite view previously and it looks very tight, but when you move to streetview and look along each of the long stands there's space to expand. You can build up and allow a tunnel under the stand for access to the ends, if you did that you could go right to the fence line.

The cost of expanding Moor Lane to 8-9k will run into the millions, which Salford don't remotely have, given they're moving precisely because this is what they can afford. I very much doubt the stadium will be much bigger five years from now. But that fact is it DOES meet the current Superleague requirements, and I bet SL don't toughen them up. So fair play. 

The question for Salford is can they continue to assemble a squad that punches above its weight and survive in SL on 5k max crowds and plus whatever corporate they can generate at Moor Lane? A relegation scrap every year isn't much of a life, and I think it did for Widnes in the end, but perhaps Salford can dodge the bullet for a few years yet as there aren't obviously 12 financially stronger clubs around .        

 

[Charlie]

22 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

The cost of expanding Moor Lane to 8-9k will run into the millions, which Salford don't remotely have, given they're moving precisely because this is what they can afford. I very much doubt the stadium will be much bigger five years from now. But that fact is it DOES meet the current Superleague requirements, and I bet SL don't toughen them up. So fair play. 

The question for Salford is can they continue to assemble a squad that punches above its weight and survive in SL on 5k max crowds and plus whatever corporate they can generate at Moor Lane? A relegation scrap every year isn't much of a life, and I think it did for Widnes in the end, but perhaps Salford can dodge the bullet for a few years yet as there aren't obviously 12 financially stronger clubs around .        

 

Payment at the Aj bell is dead money at more lane they will make a LOT more than they do now. There is ways of getting money for certain people to extend moor lane. Right now no one really knows what will happen.

[theswanmcr]

43 minutes ago, Scubby said:

I have no ill will against Salford, I wish them well. I was just as ###### off when they allowed London to play at a glorified hockey club - it is embarrassing for the elite competition. If you keep peeling back basic requirements then you will have clubs feeling that is the bar they have to reach and cut their cloth.

I mentioned Castleford. They have one seating stand of 1500 - which is 500 short of even these #### poor minimum standards of 5k with 2k seats - yet it has just been allow to fly for 10+ years. Yet clubs like Whitehaven and Dewsbury would technically be denied promotion because they have less that 2k seats. It is a bloody free for all leadership fight to the bottom.

Yeah the whole thing has always a been a mess in terms of minimum standards and dispensations. I think it winds me and many other Salford fans up because if we hadn’t done the right thing years ago (eg build a shiny new stadium) when others didn’t then we wouldn’t be in the position we currently are.

I guess though that even if you stick by rules they are always arbitrary. York’s lovely new ground wouldn’t have met the then 10k minimum for example. For me, if you keep with promotion and relegation with just on the pitch results, and not licensing, then you can’t really stipulate too many stadium requirements. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by theswanmcr

[Toby Chopra]

5 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Payment at the Aj bell is dead money at more lane they will make a LOT more than they do now. There is ways of getting money for certain people to extend moor lane. Right now no one really knows what will happen.

Hmmm...I think the phrase "a LOT" is stretching it a bit. AIUI the rent/lease isn't going to be any cheaper that what they actually (rather than contractually) pay now, and they already keep all the ticket revenue. So it's matchday food and drink and a small amount of corporate in the very limited facilities. Plus maybe some naming rights. All that's not to be sniffed at, but if the crowds remain around the current levels (and they will, given they can't really get any higher at ML) it's not going to make a substantial difference to the playing budget.

But as other have said, they're not moving because this is a bold investment play, they're moving because time has run out on the previous unsustainable arrangement.  

I have no ill will towards Salford, been to watch games there a couple of times and followed by a night out in Manchester. Good club. And the Watto/Jackson Hastings years were a blast.

But this is my summation of the reality of where they're at. Happy to learn more if people have facts and figures to share.   

[Wholly Trinity]

26 minutes ago, theswanmcr said:

Yeah the whole thing has always a been a mess in terms of minimum standards and dispensations. I think it winds me and many other Salford fans up because if we hadn’t done the right thing years ago (eg build a shiny new stadium) when others didn’t then we wouldn’t be in the position we currently are.

I guess though that even if you stick by rules they are always arbitrary. York’s lovely new ground wouldn’t have met the then 10k minimum for example. For me, if you keep with promotion and relegation with just on the pitch results, and not licensing, then you can’t really stipulate too many stadium requirements. 

I guess you're referring to Cas & Wakey as those who didn't "do the right thing".

This was not a choice. Both clubs tried everything to get a new stadium and have suffered over the years from having facilities not fit for purpose. It's purely twist of fate that all that bad luck turned out ok in the end.

After seeing how it panned out for Salford, maybe the collapse of Newmarket was a bullet dodged. Relegation for Trinity during these 20+ years would have been the end. 

Good luck to Salford if they move. They could just make it work.

[GUBRATS]

8 hours ago, Scubby said:

But it can change if the leadership is there. Wakefield nearly went Dewsbury a couple of years ago - do we say no or just amend the PDF to 4k with 1500 seats? How is it so difficult to set aspirational minimum standards? 

Toulouse have moved in with Stade Toulousain with the ambition to get regular five figure crowds. They should have just gone to the local municipal 5k stadium 6 miles out of the city and blown their whole budget on staying up in SL. 

Castleford's main stand actually only holds 1500 seats. It has broken the minimum standards for the last 6 years according to the document you shared. Yet Whitehaven were denied the right to promotion if they got there in 2021 on the same criteria.

 

Wheldon rd didn't comply in 2005 , so the rules were changed , dropped from 2000 to 1500 

[GUBRATS]

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

One of the worst elements of the licensing era is the complete fixation we have around facilities and perception to the tv audience. Often we overstate these points to suit our own arguments. 

In reality, clubs with good facilities should be able to offer a better proposition to customers and benefit from increased crowds and income, and therefore be able to run a stronger club. I don't have too much issue with Wakefield playing in a dump, but it should be something that is a millstone around their neck that stops them competing, and therefore they fall to their natural level.

However, there are two elements at play. Firstly, facilities is not proving to be the silver bullet in terms of crowd numbers. Cas for example have been able to deliver solid crowds, better than some teams in far better facilities. This belief that good grounds = good crowds is flawed. 

Secondly, the restrictive Salary Cap has helped to keep the clubs with lower incomes competitive, when in reality a club wit a turnover of £7-10m should be blowing teams with a turnover of £4m out of the water, but they can only spend the same amounts. We do see the richer teams have some benefits as they are generally the clubs players want to be at, but the cap does create a spread. 

The likes of Cas and Wakey have shown that they can keep competing with terrible facilities, and good luck to them, but a large part of that is the artificial suppression of spend at the top level. I think it is important that we allow clubs to be aspirational and push their spending if they have the infrastructure in place and the income being generated.

I don't think we necessarily need to go down the route of excluding teams from P&R, but we should be creating rules and an environment that makes it harder for these to compete.

Dave , Leigh have suffered financially by doing what all clubs were asked to , we managed to get a top facility built ( a lot of luck along with a mass of hard work ) , but it costs us , we would have been better off financially at Hilton Park , it was built for SL , the rental contract was built around being in SL , essentially we were told it was a facilities race , seems we were misled 

[Scubby]

32 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Wheldon rd didn't comply in 2005 , so the rules were changed , dropped from 2000 to 1500 

The RFL doc @gingerjon shared was 2016 and showed min 5k with 2k seating.