Jump to content

Salford to move to Moor Lane?


The Daddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"......

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.🙂

  • Confused 1

The problem with being punctual is that there is no one there to appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Damien
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

  • Like 2

     No reserves,but resilience,persistence and determination are omnipotent.                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

St.Helens - The Home of Rugby Champions

Saints Men's team - Triple Champions & Double Winners ; Saints Women's team - Treble Winners ; Thatto Heath - National Conference Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Screenshot.jpg

Edited by Kirmonds pouch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Kirmonds pouch said:

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

Screenshot.jpg

I think Salford council would come after them for every penny they owe if they left the council area.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Kirmonds pouch said:

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?

Screenshot.jpg

Why would they move to a different town and away from their support base? They’d basically alienate everyone involved with them, a worse move even than appointing Frank Lampard as manager. 

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

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

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

Well I think it is important to look at the realities.

I've looked at the size of the Salford' Chairman's business and it is quite small. In contrast Mr. Morans business is quite large. I've looked at this new SKY deal and the heavy cut in funding will make it very hard for Mr. King to keep an academy going, let alone a foundation?.

And once again if he did do this, and found the odd "gem" then he'd be pretty much unable to stop the lad joining Ratchford if he realised a potential to be a Superleague player.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Why would they move to a different town and away from their support base? They’d basically alienate everyone involved with them, a worse move even than appointing Frank Lampard as manager. 

Clearly you know even less about Manchester than I do. One, they already have moved away from their supporter base, the AJ Bell is in Eccles Manchester or didn't you notice, If you're going to be chippy you need to be way sharper than you are. Yes technically it's Salford hence Salford councils funding but it's not in what anyone would call Salford. A bit like Wakefield building a stadium in Pontefract.

However the point you missed by a staggering mile was the re-branding to Manchester, Seeing as Salford barely exists as an entity anymore, while Manchester is IMHO now Britain second city. that is where the expansion lays according to the expansionist doctrine.

Personally I don't give a stuff as once Salford gave up their Academy they ceased to be a genuine club in my book. However if I were to muse on a way to re-ignite the game in the Greater Manchester area, that place looks a great starting point, certainly better than the desolation that is the AJ Bell. Again I reiterate, this would be a new re-branded club from the ashes of Salford and possibly Swinton and even Oldham.

Could it work, I don't know is the answer, not least because I don't know if using that stadium is even on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Kirmonds pouch said:

Clearly you know even less about Manchester than I do. One, they already have moved away from their supporter base, the AJ Bell is in Eccles Manchester or didn't you notice, If you're going to be chippy you need to be way sharper than you are. Yes technically it's Salford hence Salford councils funding but it's not in what anyone would call Salford. A bit like Wakefield building a stadium in Pontefract.

However the point you missed by a staggering mile was the re-branding to Manchester, Seeing as Salford barely exists as an entity anymore, while Manchester is IMHO now Britain second city. that is where the expansion lays according to the expansionist doctrine.

Personally I don't give a stuff as once Salford gave up their Academy they ceased to be a genuine club in my book. However if I were to muse on a way to re-ignite the game in the Greater Manchester area, that place looks a great starting point, certainly better than the desolation that is the AJ Bell. Again I reiterate, this would be a new re-branded club from the ashes of Salford and possibly Swinton and even Oldham.

Could it work, I don't know is the answer, not least because I don't know if using that stadium is even on.

Ignoring your jibes, what you’re saying is that you want to close Salford down and open a new Manchester club in their place? Ok mate, great idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Why would they move to a different town and away from their support base? They’d basically alienate everyone involved with them, a worse move even than appointing Frank Lampard as manager. 

And syeal the chance for a real manchester club to exist , lunancy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kirmonds pouch said:

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?

Screenshot.jpg

As a fellow fan put it so eloquently on Tuesday: "You can right off if you think I'm going to watch us at City's ground".

 

Agree or disagree with the sentiment all you like but, when there is a large mutual support between MUFC and Salford, it is a non-starter.

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...