Jump to content

Salford to move to Moor Lane?


The Daddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Robthegasman said:

I have read an article about this on the Manchester Evening News website.

 And it seems that in order to get Moor Lane up to Super League standards will cost a bit of money which I thought was the case regardless.It seems that the floodlights aren’t SL standard, and that the advertising hoardings aren’t high enough which would reduce capacity to make them bigger along with the TV gantry not being good enough.

Who would pay for that to be rectified? How much would it cost?And would it be worth it?

Now reading the article and reading between the lines,it suggests that Salford as a Super League club is simply not going to be sustainable. And the article suggested that they may have to look elsewhere for a Super League quality Stadium ie the Manchester arena next to the Etihad,Middlebrook,Bolton or Gigg Lane Bury.But that means leaving the area and they only need to look at Swinton to see how that has effected them.

It certainly looks to me as an outsider looking in that they are facing an existential issue now.Very much at crunch time.

I think the council seem pretty committed to facilitating this move, which hopefully means Moor Lane can become a reduced-size platform to rebuild from

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

I think the council seem pretty committed to facilitating this move, which hopefully means Moor Lane can become a reduced-size platform to rebuild from

 

 

As a Council Tax payer who has the misfortune to pay my Council Tax to Salford City Council I don’t think one single penny of public money should be spent on that ground.Besides Salford RLFC have had quite a lot of public money given to them and either none of it or very little of it has been paid back.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

I voted to leave the EU. And I don’t regret it for one second.

For a clean sweep and to expedite the thread getting locked, can you give us your vaccine views as well please?

Edited by Whippet13
  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

If they did do that then I would say a maximum of 2 years and no more. And in my opinion it should be on their dime or the dime of the owners of Moor Lane and most certainly not the Council Tax payers. And in my opinion Salford City Council should not end up the owners of Moor Lane.

I thought Salford City Council do own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:


Yeah great benchmark… sorry, just to clarify, was that when we’d been in SuperLeague for most of the prior 25 years like Salford have now? 
 

[….waits patiently for honest response…]
 

Mate, my original comment was from genuine concern and empathy, not snide points-scoring “my clubs better than your club” mindless nonsense, so wind your neck in. 

Accept comment was genuine concern and Salford are a mid 4000’s draw in SL, but most clubs have had bad times fans often forget. Between the lines Salford look luvved as I am sure the council can’t carry on justifying no rent and wiping of debts much longer and this new place is as attractive as a vote for Jezza in 2019 was for somebody in real work 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Robthegasman said:

I am not sure.I do know that the refurbishment of Moor Lane which has been a good job overall was paid for by the owners of Salford City FC ie the”Class of 92”and Peter Lin.

Things like that are quite normal but don't mean that Salford City Council don't own it. They certainly own the land. Manchester City Council own the Etihad but Man City pay for improvements and operating costs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Things like that are quite normal but don't mean that Salford City Council don't own it. They certainly own the land. Manchester City Council own the Etihad but Man City pay for improvements and operating costs.

I think you may be right that they(Salford City Council)own the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

As a Council Tax payer who has the misfortune to pay my Council Tax to Salford City Council I don’t think one single penny of public money should be spent on that ground.Besides Salford RLFC have had quite a lot of public money given to them and either none of it or very little of it has been paid back.

 

I find it bizarre when fans believe the local authority (council tax payers) should pay for their stadium upgrades, you get a similar attitude with Wakefield and Castleford fans as well as at Salford. They are basically asking for their neighbours to subsidise their hobby of watching Rugby League.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I find it bizarre when fans believe the local authority (council tax payers) should pay for their stadium upgrades, you get a similar attitude with Wakefield and Castleford fans as well as at Salford. They are basically asking for their neighbours to subsidise their hobby of watching Rugby League.

You really don't want to go there!

https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=62171

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wakefield, Cas & Fev are each receiving £2m from WMDC.

WMDC have stood guarantor on a £3m local govt loan, for the purchase of the BV ground. 

These figures are NOTHING compared to the money LCC have chucked into the rugby and cricket grounds over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I find it bizarre when fans believe the local authority (council tax payers) should pay for their stadium upgrades, you get a similar attitude with Wakefield and Castleford fans as well as at Salford. They are basically asking for their neighbours to subsidise their hobby of watching Rugby League.

This presumably is true of libraries or swimming pools, where a council subsidises hobbies of reading or swimming.

I am being a bit facetious of course and you're right that local authorities shouldn't just be spending public cash on private companies (which RL clubs are). Council support can be appropriate in many cases provided it is proportionate, offers some protection to the taxpayer and is of benefit to the community - there are plenty of stadia in RL where facilities are shared with the local public sector to provide community facilities - health clinics, education centres etc.

  • Like 3

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

This presumably is true of libraries or swimming pools, where a council subsidises hobbies of reading or swimming.

I am being a bit facetious of course and you're right that local authorities shouldn't just be spending public cash on private companies (which RL clubs are). Council support can be appropriate in many cases provided it is proportionate, offers some protection to the taxpayer and is of benefit to the community - there are plenty of stadia in RL where facilities are shared with the local public sector to provide community facilities - health clinics, education centres etc.

Agree completely and it's worth noting that the £2m to the WMDC clubs is tied to them delivering measurable community outcomes. They aren't give-aways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/12/2021 at 16:34, dboy said:

Will you pay rent at Peninsula?? Shouldn't you be aiming to own your next home?

Peninsula does NOT have the same land footprint associated with Cas - nowhere near.

Salford aren't "well-run and debt free" - you can't afford your rent because you overspend on players and your CVA debt was written off because you didn't pay it and it timed out. That's not a well run club.

Salford decided not to run an academy because they, well, couldn't afford one - despite Billy Big ###### Koukash saying XYZ. The RFL did not "supress" you.

 

 

D boy thanks for the praise.

🤔Just to respond. The 2-3k figure comes from,a statement made by the club a year ago on BBC radio Manchester in response to the then prospect of attendances being restricted to 4000 (stop laughing at the back now) at the AJ Bell of Doom.

The club maintained that after STH and hospitality, ettc, that would leave around 1000 tickets available. Most they presumed for away followers. It is known the stadium company only count literal attendees, not non attending STH. Under Koukash, up to 40% didn't roll up. 

🤔Footprint. It surprises me, but they are roughly the same.

As you can see Castleford trots out at 19,000 sq m

Wakefield register as 20,000 sq m.

And Moor Lane is down at 19,350 sq m.

What the former have and Moor Lane doesn't, are car parks, which I can excuse any one for thinking these grounds lie on bigger footprints. BUT no club is likely to build on such easy access/ revenue boosting land are they

If all three could be developed as modern 12-8k stadiums, run/owned by each respective club, then the whole game would be enhanced for sure.

🤔The jury is out whether the CVa write off was canny or not. 

🤔The club and many others felt the Academy bid was excellent. The RFL had an agenda to restrict Academy for favoured sides, that to a degree was successfully challenged. SRD will be fine next time,  albeit I hope common sense prevails and we go for regional academies.

I hope this helps.

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

The footprint of Moor Lane is literally the pitch, stands and surrounding walkways.

Cas have a training pitch alongside, and Wakefield has a huge car park and the footprint of the old Theatre Club.

Apart from the fact that it can't be extensively developed, I think you've already conceded that Salford won't own Moor Lane - who are you gonna con, sorry encourage, to put money into any potential development this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Robthegasman said:

As a Council Tax payer who has the misfortune to pay my Council Tax to Salford City Council I don’t think one single penny of public money should be spent on that ground.Besides Salford RLFC have had quite a lot of public money given to them and either none of it or very little of it has been paid back.

 

Rob I might agree. If I assume her a "west" Mancunian from Swinton, would you petition your club to refuse if a council the same as offered to SRD. The injustice is Swinton haven't.

3 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I find it bizarre when fans believe the local authority (council tax payers) should pay for their stadium upgrades, you get a similar attitude with Wakefield and Castleford fans as well as at Salford. They are basically asking for their neighbours to subsidise their hobby of watching Rugby League.

3 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

 

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...