Jump to content

Salford to move to Moor Lane?


The Daddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It rather misses the point of the issues tbh. The issue is the 4,000 part.

I agree with that - but Huddersfield aren't much better and that does look awful in a massive stadium. 

Feels like Salford tried the whole 'built it and they will come' approach and it failed. A 5k stadium feels about their level for the foreseeable - whether that makes them worthy of being a SL club is a different conversation. However, whilst Wakefield and Cas are still getting away with their 'stadiums' I see no issue with this move. 

We all know the real issue here is why we can't get people into these stadiums, to justify the need for them to be bigger. If Wigan for example were to leave the DW, I seriously wonder what 'ambition' they'd show in terms of a RL only stadium capacity? I'd go 14k at best. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Dave T said:

It rather misses the point of the issues tbh. The issue is the 4,000 part.

I agree. But the point of this thread is Salford's move to Moor Lane; not Salford's poor attendances. The other poster believed it was our potential move to Moor Lane that was the issue; not our poor attendances.

We'd contribute much more to Super League with 5,000 every week at Moor Lane than 4,000 at the AJ Bell. The size of the ground is irrelevant unless and until it is full every week. What matters is the matchday experience, TV product and the opportunity to create and retain our own revenue outside of ticket sales. 

Edited by Ray Cashmere
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

I agree. But the point of this thread is Salford's move to Moor Lane; not Salford's poor attendances. The other poster believed it was our potential move to Moor Lane that was the issue; not our poor attendances.

We'd contribute much more to Super League with 5,000 every week at Moor Lane than 4,000 at the AJ Bell. The size of the ground is irrelevant unless and until it is full every week. What matters is the matchday experience, TV product and the opportunity to create and retain our own revenue outside of ticket sales. 

100 %. Full crowds and high capacity looks better for the TV and gives a broadcaster an extra 13 games to pick now if we have one less empty stadium in SL. 

Think from off the field revenue it is going to be a game changer for them. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

I agree. But the point of this thread is Salford's move to Moor Lane; not Salford's poor attendances. The other poster believed it was our potential move to Moor Lane that was the issue; not our poor attendances.

We'd contribute much more to Super League with 5,000 every week at Moor Lane than 4,000 at the AJ Bell. The size of the ground is irrelevant unless and until it is full every week. What matters is the matchday experience, TV product and the opportunity to create and retain our own revenue outside of ticket sales. 

That's fair, but ultimately it is the poor crowds that is driving this move, hence the conversation going that way. 

I agree that it will look better, and hopefully deliver a better experience, but I'm not really sure how we can celebrate moving to such a small ground. 

But I can see why as a Salford fan you are looking for the positives, and I genuinely hope it works out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor crowds aren't 'driving' the move. Salford City & Sale Sharks possessing both the willingness and financial means to buy the AJ Bell is what is driving the move. 

This isn't about 'looking for' positives either. I'm well aware that a move to Moor Lane will provide serious challenges as well as opportunities. The next Fans' Forum on 4th November will hopefully add some clarity as to what these challenges and opportunities specifically are.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ray Cashmere said:

Poor crowds aren't 'driving' the move. Salford City & Sale Sharks possessing both the willingness and financial means to buy the AJ Bell is what is driving the move. 

This isn't about 'looking for' positives either. I'm well aware that a move to Moor Lane will provide serious challenges as well as opportunities. The next Fans' Forum on 4th November will hopefully add some clarity as to what these challenges and opportunities specifically are.

Well do you think Salford would be in such a vulnerable position if they had an average attendance of 8-9K? (Which isn't sensational in itself but much better than 3-4K )

The crowds are definitely the issue.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnoco said:

Well do you think Salford would be in such a vulnerable position if they had an average attendance of 8-9K? (Which isn't sensational in itself but much better than 3-4K )

The crowds are definitely the issue.

You're putting words in my mouth. I referenced our poor attendances 4 posts above if you could be bothered reading. I merely stated attendances aren't the driving force behind us leaving.

It is highly unlikely crowds of 8-9k would have a material impact on our capacity to buy the AJ Bell. The sort of capital required for such an investment is only possible through private equity (more likely a benefactor) in rugby league. We don't have one. Salford City & Sale Sharks do and intend to buy the AJ Bell.

Even Super League clubs who do have the attendances and/or private investment (Wigan, Hull, Huddersfield) cannot afford their own stadium. Let's not pretend this isn't a wider issue.

Super League does need clubs with better funding, attendances and infrastructure than what we currently have but, let's face it, we're far from unique in that sense. I've no issue engaging in those issues but there are a million other threads on here to do with that. 

Edited by Ray Cashmere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

You're putting words in my mouth. I referenced our poor attendances 4 posts above if you could be bothered reading. I merely stated attendances aren't the driving force behind us leaving.

It is highly unlikely crowds of 8-9k would have a material impact on our capacity to buy the AJ Bell. The sort of capital required for such an investment is only possible through private equity (more likely a benefactor) in rugby league. We don't have one. Salford City & Sale Sharks do and intend to buy the AJ Bell.

Even Super League clubs who do have the attendances and/or private investment (Wigan, Hull, Huddersfield) cannot afford their own stadium. Let's not pretend this isn't a wider issue.

Super League does need clubs with better funding, attendances and infrastructure than what we currently have but, let's face it, we're far from unique in that sense. I've no issue engaging in those issues but there are a million other threads on here to do with that. 

The difference is those clubs aren't being booted out of their stadium.

I didn't say they would be loaded if they had a better attendance, I said they would not be in such a vulnerable position. Maybe they would be seen as the preferred partner if they did have bigger crowds? Maybe they'd be a more attractive proposition for any potential business looking to invest in a sports club. 

It's all connected, perception can be everything. And if the perception is of Salford being a failing club leaving behind a string of unpaid debts, then they don't have a strong bargaining hand.

I wish it was different, I'd love to see Salford locking them out every week.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ray Cashmere said:

Poor crowds aren't 'driving' the move. Salford City & Sale Sharks possessing both the willingness and financial means to buy the AJ Bell is what is driving the move. 

This isn't about 'looking for' positives either. I'm well aware that a move to Moor Lane will provide serious challenges as well as opportunities. The next Fans' Forum on 4th November will hopefully add some clarity as to what these challenges and opportunities specifically are.

I disagree. Salford are in a very weak position because of their lack of crowds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

The difference is those clubs aren't being booted out of their stadium.

I didn't say they would be loaded if they had a better attendance, I said they would not be in such a vulnerable position. Maybe they would be seen as the preferred partner if they did have bigger crowds? Maybe they'd be a more attractive proposition for any potential business looking to invest in a sports club. 

It's all connected, perception can be everything. And if the perception is of Salford being a failing club leaving behind a string of unpaid debts, then they don't have a strong bargaining hand.

I wish it was different, I'd love to see Salford locking them out every week.

Perception doesn't fund the purchase of stadiums. Brian Kennedy (the Sale Sharks owner worth c.£275m), the Class of 92 and Peter Lim do. If you want to continue engaging in ifs, buts and maybes then be my guest but I'd rather deal with reality. 

Any club who is a tenant in their stadium is subject to the conditions set by their landlord. Ask Coventry City and Wigan Warriors fans.  

Nowhere am I defending our attendances. I'm merely stating that they're immaterial to the fact a billionaire, his football mates and a Sunday Times Richlist rugby union owner want to buy our ground and, as tenants, it's out of our hands. Unless you can point out any inaccuracies in the above I really don't know what you're arguing about.

Edited by Ray Cashmere
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

Perception doesn't fund the purchase of stadiums. Brian Kennedy (the Sale Sharks owner worth c.£275m), the Class of 92 and Peter Lim do. If you want to continue engaging in ifs, buts and maybes then be my guest but I'd rather deal with reality. 

Any club who is a tenant in their stadium is subject to the conditions set by their landlord. Ask Coventry City and Wigan Warriors fans.  

Nowhere am I defending our attendances. I'm merely stating that they're immaterial to the fact a billionaire, his football mates and a Sunday Times Richlist rugby union owner want to buy our ground and, as tenants, it's out of our hands. Unless you can point out any inaccuracies in the above I really don't know what you're arguing about.

I'd say you've pretty much nailed it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

Perception doesn't fund the purchase of stadiums. Brian Kennedy (the Sale Sharks owner worth c.£275m), the Class of 92 and Peter Lim do. If you want to continue engaging in ifs, buts and maybes then be my guest but I'd rather deal with reality. 

Any club who is a tenant in their stadium is subject to the conditions set by their landlord. Ask Coventry City and Wigan Warriors fans.  

Nowhere am I defending our attendances. I'm merely stating that they're immaterial to the fact a billionaire, his football mates and a Sunday Times Richlist rugby union owner want to buy our ground and, as tenants, it's out of our hands. Unless you can point out any inaccuracies in the above I really don't know what you're arguing about.

Sale have wanted to buy the stadium for years. Nothing new there. The Council have always refused to sell though, until seemingly now. Salford failing to pay rent and debts has contributed massively to the stadium failing and not turning a profit. That is undeniable. Now some Salford fans may like to wash their hands and pretend the two aren't linked but it is precisely the actions of Salford over the years that have led to the weak position they now find themselves in.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

Perception doesn't fund the purchase of stadiums. Brian Kennedy (the Sale Sharks owner worth c.£275m), the Class of 92 and Peter Lim do. If you want to continue engaging in ifs, buts and maybes then be my guest but I'd rather deal with reality. 

Any club who is a tenant in their stadium is subject to the conditions set by their landlord. Ask Coventry City and Wigan Warriors fans.  

Nowhere am I defending our attendances. I'm merely stating that they're immaterial to the fact a billionaire, his football mates and a Sunday Times Richlist rugby union owner want to buy our ground and, as tenants, it's out of our hands. Unless you can point out any inaccuracies in the above I really don't know what you're arguing about.

They could have - and should have -done much better in terms of attracting spectators. You say it's out of your hands if someone wants to buy the stadium as if he's just rocked up and made an offer, when it has been brewing for years and it didn't take Nostradamus to see what Sales end game was. 

They can't now throw up their hands as if it was the weather and completely out of their hands. They should have seen it coming a mile off and tried harder. 

As it is, they're downsizing and generally that leads to more downsizing....not regrouping and coming back stronger. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

Sale have wanted to buy the stadium for years. Nothing new there. The Council have always refused to sell though, until seemingly now. Salford failing to pay rent and debts has contributed massively to the stadium failing and not turning a profit. That is undeniable. Now some Salford fans may like to wash their hands and pretend the two aren't linked but it is precisely the actions of Salford over the years that have led to the weak position they now find themselves in.

1) It has never been solely the council's decision. The AJ Bell is owned by CosCos which is a joint venture between Salford Council AND Peel Holdings. Whilst Salford Council do have a level of accountability with the local community, Peel Holdings do not. Neither you nor I know the exact nature of that dynamic but, in my opinion, it was destined to fail. 

2) Sale did previously express an interest in buying the AJ Bell in 2016/17 but it wasn't feasible for several reasons: a) our tenancy agreement was secured until 2023, b) Plan A was still to build a ground IN Sale (which has subsequently become unfeasible), c) Salford Council could not be seen to sell SRD out to an-out-of-town Sale Sharks.

3) The role of Salford City and the Class of 92 has made a material impact upon the legitimacy of Sale's bid as Salford Council can now argue they are continuing to honour the primary purpose of the stadium i.e. as a stadium for the City of Salford. Further, our tenancy will have expired by the time of purchase making it more attractive proposition 

4) Our move to the AJ Bell has been a car crash. Unrealistic financial projections by all stakeholders, uncompleted infrastructure and a total lack of fan engagement have all contributed to where we are now. It has been a case study in how not to move grounds. The idea that match going fans and the current ownership are somehow responsible is detached from reality. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

They could have - and should have -done much better in terms of attracting spectators. You say it's out of your hands if someone wants to buy the stadium as if he's just rocked up and made an offer, when it has been brewing for years and it didn't take Nostradamus to see what Sales end game was. 

They can't now throw up their hands as if it was the weather and completely out of their hands. They should have seen it coming a mile off and tried harder. 

As it is, they're downsizing and generally that leads to more downsizing....not regrouping and coming back stronger. 

This seems harsh. Saying they need to try harder and do better to attract spectators could literally be applied to almost every SL club - you're only talking about Salford because they're the ones being squeezed out by stronger party(s). We could very easily be having this conversation about Wigan in the near future. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

1) It has never been solely the council's decision. The AJ Bell is owned by CosCos which is a joint venture between Salford Council AND Peel Holdings. Whilst Salford Council do have a level of accountability with the local community, Peel Holdings do not. Neither you nor I know the exact nature of that dynamic but, in my opinion, it was destined to fail. 

2) Sale did previously express an interest in buying the AJ Bell in 2016/17 but it wasn't feasible for several reasons: a) our tenancy agreement was secured until 2023, b) Plan A was still to build a ground IN Sale (which has subsequently become unfeasible), c) Salford Council could not be seen to sell SRD out to an-out-of-town Sale Sharks.

3) The role of Salford City and the Class of 92 has made a material impact upon the legitimacy of Sale's bid as Salford Council can now argue they are continuing to honour the primary purpose of the stadium i.e. as a stadium for the City of Salford. Further, our tenancy will have expired by the time of purchase making it more attractive proposition 

4) Our move to the AJ Bell has been a car crash. Unrealistic financial projections by all stakeholders, uncompleted infrastructure and a total lack of fan engagement have all contributed to where we are now. It has been a case study in how not to move grounds. The idea that match going fans and the current ownership are somehow responsible is detached from reality. 

1) I know what the relationship is. As I said some Salford fans may like to wash their hands about what the club has done in the past and pretend the two aren't linked. You are obviously one of them.

2) Sale have talked about buying the ground on multiple occasions. They left Stockport in 2012, they have been no more out of town in the previous decade than they are now. They only talked about moving back to Sale when the council refused to sell the stadium.

3) Sale have played there for a decade, paid their bills and even bought naming rights. I'm not sure why Salford fans are so happy to see themselves usurped by Salford City. Even now Salford Rugby are the cities premier club with higher average attendances, act like it. You also keep talking about Salford's tenancy like it would hinder any sale, it wouldn't. Its just another excuse.

4) I largely agree but again Salford cant just detach themselves from what their club did in the past. It may be unfortunate but that's the reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

This seems harsh. Saying they need to try harder and do better to attract spectators could literally be applied to almost every SL club - you're only talking about Salford because they're the ones being squeezed out by stronger party(s). We could very easily be having this conversation about Wigan in the near future. 

It might seem harsh but I've nothing against Salford at all. I want them to do well. But is everything not their fault? I'd suggest a huge chunk of the situation they are in is down to them and them alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

It might seem harsh but I've nothing against Salford at all. I want them to do well. But is everything not their fault? I'd suggest a huge chunk of the situation they are in is down to them and them alone.

Who though? The previous owners (The Wilkinson family/Marwan Koukash)? The current administration (Paul King etc)? The employees? The fans? The community?

 

You can't just dumb down what is an incredibly complex situation to get an easy answer. There is plenty of blame to go around for the position we are in amongst plenty of different people and stakeholders. I have neither the time nor the interest to go down that rabbit hole though so if you want to pin it all on 'the club' as if it's this homogenous entity then feel free.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

It might seem harsh but I've nothing against Salford at all. I want them to do well. But is everything not their fault? I'd suggest a huge chunk of the situation they are in is down to them and them alone.

I just think too much blame is been attributed the running of SRD and not enough consideration offered to the pretty unique position they find themselves in. Not one but two far wealthier entities are proposing to outright purchase the stadium. Even if SRD were getting 7k a game and finances were historically better, you still don't think the squeeze from these other 2 clubs would see them in the same position? I believe it would. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an open invitation to anyone who thinks all Salford need to do is 'try harder', 'act like a big club' or 'just get 9k through your gates' in order to purchase the AJ Bell to come and participate in the fans forum on 4th November to impart your pearls of wisdom on the directors and match-going fans.

I won't hold my breath. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I just think too much blame is been attributed the running of SRD and not enough consideration offered to the pretty unique position they find themselves in. Not one but two far wealthier entities are proposing to outright purchase the stadium. Even if SRD were getting 7k a game and finances were historically better, you still don't think the squeeze from these other 2 clubs would see them in the same position? I believe it would. 

But hunsletgreenandgold; money doesn't matter in the purchase of a stadium when you can just 'try harder'. Didn't you know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

This is an open invitation to anyone who thinks all Salford need to do is 'try harder', 'act like a big club' or 'just get 9k through your gates' in order to purchase the AJ Bell to come and participate in the fans forum on 4th November to impart your pearls of wisdom on the directors and match-going fans.

I won't hold my breath. 

 

Why would I? I don't sufficiently care about Salford to offer any wisdom. 

But whatever happens, happens and if in 5 years time they are playing in front of 1500, it definitely won't be their fault. Not a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I just think too much blame is been attributed the running of SRD and not enough consideration offered to the pretty unique position they find themselves in. Not one but two far wealthier entities are proposing to outright purchase the stadium. Even if SRD were getting 7k a game and finances were historically better, you still don't think the squeeze from these other 2 clubs would see them in the same position? I believe it would. 

What unique position? You mean the one where they moved into a newly built stadium as the only tenants? That is fairly unique for a SL club I suppose, many would love that unique position. 

When they moved in, Salford football club were absolutely nothing, Salford RL should have put their mark on the stadium and both Sale and SFC should not even have had a sniff of usurping them.

But I suppose it's easier to sit back and play the victim constantly. 

  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ray Cashmere said:

I agree. But the point of this thread is Salford's move to Moor Lane; not Salford's poor attendances. The other poster believed it was our potential move to Moor Lane that was the issue; not our poor attendances.

We'd contribute much more to Super League with 5,000 every week at Moor Lane than 4,000 at the AJ Bell. The size of the ground is irrelevant unless and until it is full every week. What matters is the matchday experience, TV product and the opportunity to create and retain our own revenue outside of ticket sales. 

What makes you think Salford’s attendances will increase by moving to  a tiny,stadium with poor facilities ?

Its size will hardly improve the TV product no matter how many are in attendance,it will still look like an amateur ground hardly befitting the top level of RL in the Northern hemisphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Johnoco said:

Well do you think Salford would be in such a vulnerable position if they had an average attendance of 8-9K? (Which isn't sensational in itself but much better than 3-4K )

The crowds are definitely the issue.

Well with 8-9 K attendances they might have been able to keep up with their rent & wouldn’t be facing eviction.

  • Like 4
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...