Jump to content

Salford to move to Moor Lane?


The Daddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Tonka said:

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

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

Agreed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


12 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Pretty sure your wrong 

I'm not, currently the RFL, FA and RFU only recognise 3G as a technology. What is being called 4G, 5G etc. is marketing for products which while may be better than predecessors are fundamentally the same 3G technology otherwise they wouldn't be allowed. 

I think from when you said hockey you're thinking of 2G astroturf i.e. sand without rubber infill. 

  • Haha 1

I was born to run a club like this. Number 1, I do not spook easily, and those who think I do, are wasting their time, with their surprise attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Henson Park Old Firm said:
2 hours ago, M j M said:

Ownership isn't important in itself.

Being able to exploit the full commercial opportunities of the stadium is however. And that generally comes with ownership or long leasehold (as many of the financially struggling Super League clubs who rent their stadia and have little control will confirm.)

Look at Hull, Huddersfeild, Wigan

Huddersfield are a different case as they have, at least for now, an element of ownership and control.

Hull and Wigan though, exactly - two of what should be our strongest clubs have major issues one way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dboy said:

The point, explicit - not wide, is that you were asked directly "would Salford own the ground?"

You said yes, when the answer is no.

Just a matter of honesty, truthfulness and accuracy

If the lease is as little as 21 years, you wouldn't waste money painting the walls, never mind doing floodlights, stands and corporate upgrades.

 

If you knew you were going to live in a house for 21 years wouldn’t you bother decorating it then? 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, DI Keith Fowler said:

I'm not, currently the RFL, FA and RFU only recognise 3G as a technology. What is being called 4G, 5G etc. is marketing for products which while may be better than predecessors are fundamentally the same 3G technology otherwise they wouldn't be allowed. 

I think from when you said hockey you're thinking of 2G astroturf i.e. sand without rubber infill. 

I have also seen reference to Synthetic and Hybrid pitches - where do these fit into the picture?

We probably need a separate 'plastic pitch' thread to discuss 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Eddie said:

If you knew you were going to live in a house for 21 years wouldn’t you bother decorating it then? 

Not talking about decorating though, are we.

I'd roll it in glitter, but I wouldn't build a £10m extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Posts like this should be trotted out when the forum comes round to its monthly cycle of questioning the value of existing teams like Salford. 

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

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Wanderer said:

I have also seen reference to Synthetic and Hybrid pitches - where do these fit into the picture?

We probably need a separate 'plastic pitch' thread to discuss 😂

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ShropshireBull said:

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

I know it’s a good idea in principle, but you seem to mention Universities in every post now (progress from York and Newcastle). I don’t think a meaningful university link up would be easy to arrange. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, dboy said:

Not talking about decorating though, are we.

I'd roll it in glitter, but I wouldn't build a £10m extension.

Well it depends, doesn’t it?

If the numbers work, spending £x on even a 21 year lease to add 3k to the capacity might be more than viable, whether or not they extend the lease after that time or look elsewhere.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, dboy said:

The point, explicit - not wide, is that you were asked directly "would Salford own the ground?"

You said yes, when the answer is no.

Just a matter of honesty, truthfulness and accuracy

If the lease is as little as 21 years, you wouldn't waste money painting the walls, never mind doing floodlights, stands and corporate upgrades.

 

It's a matter of pedantry.

Unless we were planning on having an open top bus parade to celebrate the official copies of title stating Salford Red Devils as possessing the freehold then the practical and commercial implications of a having a long-lease instead are nil.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tonka said:

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

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

Thanks, I appreciate it.

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

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

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I know it’s a good idea in principle, but you seem to mention Universities in every post now (progress from York and Newcastle). I don’t think a meaningful university link up would be easy to arrange. 

No not easy but worthwhile. The club needs a) more fans b) to increase the player pool for Greater Manchester c) more exposure. Salford have no academy and need to be doing something more to keep a pathway going or engage the area. The Uni has about 20,000 students. Say 40% are lads , I think a competitive and successful team that adds value to the Uni and the club isn´t a huge investment (Salford provide professional coaches and sort out transport) . I am no fan of Uni expansion and think it has largely been a fraud but if it exists we should be tapping into it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

Thanks, I appreciate it.

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

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

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ray Cashmere said:

Thanks, I appreciate it.

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

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

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

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

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johnoco said:

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

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

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Wellsy4HullFC
  • Like 5
Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree and I think there is an acceptance from the club that they aren´t either. I expect them to get relegated but this is a chance to be reborn and restart. It´s a proactive attempt to rejuvinate the club rather than linger away. I am much more positive about their future out of the box if they are engaging in the community and competitive at the top of the championship rather than the constant scrabble at the bottom. 

If they could have had fans at the challenge cup it could ohave been different but I think they are taking steps to build a future and not be a victim of circumstance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the whole point.

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

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...