Jump to content

Salford to move to Moor Lane?


The Daddy
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 2

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


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .        

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by theswanmcr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

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 

I think there is certainly a case that new facilities are automatically a good move, but that ultimately comes down to the commercials. Salford is a perfect example of that. 

But I think there is also the challenge that the likes of Hilton Park just weren't fit for purpose and would be even less so a further decade on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think there is certainly a case that new facilities are automatically a good move, but that ultimately comes down to the commercials. Salford is a perfect example of that. 

But I think there is also the challenge that the likes of Hilton Park just weren't fit for purpose and would be even less so a further decade on. 

I agree , but financially it was better for LRLFC than the LSV 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wholly Trinity said:

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.

Thanks Wholly.

Yes that’s pretty much what I was referring to but don’t bode either Cas or Wakey any bad will. No one could have predicted who would be the winners and losers 20 years later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

It´s 13 more fixtures that won´t look ###### on Sky.

Yes indeed. I , like you, spend all my time watching the crowd on Sky games rather than watching what happens on the field.😀

 

  • Like 1

I'm interested in that drive, that rush to judgment, that is so prevalent in our society. We all know that pleasurable rush that comes from condemning, and in the short term it's quite a satisfying thing to do, isn't it?

J. K. Rowling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/03/2022 at 13:50, Jughead said:

Would Salford RD be buying Moor Lane then? I thought they’d merely be renting from the council, though I don’t really keep up to date with stadium nonsense. 

Salford will be leasing it from the council. 

meaning they will be responsible for the ground etc but also allow them to benefit from the commercial streams that come with that

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

Yes indeed. I , like you, spend all my time watching the crowd on Sky games rather than watching what happens on the field.😀

 

When the company who bankrolled the sport slashes the money from 40 to 25 million,  I am concerned about providing them the best product possible. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ShropshireBull said:

When the company who bankrolled the sport slashes the money from 40 to 25 million,  I am concerned about providing them the best product possible. 

Sky cuts funding because it believes RL is a shrinking sport. RL clubs shrink to tiny town stadiums to prove to Sky it is a growing sport. 

I like the logic!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Sky cuts funding because it believes RL is a shrinking sport. RL clubs shrink to tiny town stadiums to prove to Sky it is a growing sport. 

I like the logic!

Having games with oceans of empty seats is significantly worse for the product.

Second as has been said many times,  there is no alternative for Salford. Your proposal bar them from SL is hardly likely to increase crowds.

I am confident that it can be a positive. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, To Be Confirmed said:

Salford will be leasing it from the council. 

meaning they will be responsible for the ground etc but also allow them to benefit from the commercial streams that come with that

It is even more technical than that.

As it stands the land apparently has a covenant that the land has to be used for recreation.

For most of its history it was the home of Manchester (RU) FC and at one time the All Blacks were to play there.

That covenant and the lease of the land is held by the council.

Meanwhile the buildings on top of it are currently owned by Salford City FC.

These two will swap the buildings for the council's share of the company that owns/runs the AJ Bell stade.

Then the council will hand the control of the ground over to Salford Reds Devils.

All parties are negotiating the terms of transfer and how Moor Lane will be managed.

SRD have provisional plans to increase capacity to around 8K. They will need new floodlights and advertising hoardings to fulfill SL standards.

As I have said the "floor size" of the site is roughly the same as Wheeldon Road and Belle Vue (Except they also have a car park, which they won't build on). So enough to expand.

The "subbuteo" style stands as one poster refers to them as, are ideal for quick cheap renovation and expansion. I mean it would be far worse if we were talking about rebuilding some priceless much cherished antique stand.

Give it a rest lads. We should be rejoicing in this.

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

Just now, idrewthehaggis said:

y F6C6It is even more technical than that.

As it stands the land apparently has a covenant that the land has to be used for recreation.

For most of its history it was the home of Manchester (RU) FC and at one time the All Blacks were to play there.

That covenant and the lease of the land is held by the council.

Meanwhile the buildings on top of it are currently owned by Salford City FC.

These two will swap the buildings for the council's share of the company that owns/runs the AJ Bell stade.

Then the council will hand the control of the ground over to Salford Reds Devils.

All parties are negotiating the terms of transfer and how Moor Lane will be managed.

SRD have provisional plans to increase capacity to around 8K. They will need new floodlights and advertising hoardings to fulfill SL standards.

As I have said the "floor size" of the site is roughly the same as Wheeldon Road and Belle Vue (Except they also have a car park, which they won't build on). So enough to expand.

The "subbuteo" style stands as one poster refers to them as, are ideal for quick cheap renovation and expansion. I mean it would be far worse if we were talking about rebuilding some priceless much cherished antique stand.

Give it a rest lads. We should be rejoicing in this.

8 k is a great size for our mid tier clubs. Plenty of room to expand on their current fan base and get a bucket load of use out of the stadium. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, idrewthehaggis said:

As I have said the "floor size" of the site is roughly the same as Wheeldon Road and Belle Vue (Except they also have a car park, which they won't build on). So enough to expand.

 

Yes, and I subsequently responded with the factual evidence that is has no-where near the footprint of BV or WR.

I'm sure Moor Lane will be better than the vacuum they are in now, but it's not a stepping stone to anything other than survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ShropshireBull said:

When the company who bankrolled the sport slashes the money from 40 to 25 million,  I am concerned about providing them the best product possible. 

And that is on the pitch, not in the stands.

I'm interested in that drive, that rush to judgment, that is so prevalent in our society. We all know that pleasurable rush that comes from condemning, and in the short term it's quite a satisfying thing to do, isn't it?

J. K. Rowling

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...