New drama

[dboy]

7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

What would you have wanted ‘the game’ to do about Salfords stadium situation?

Oh, I thought after Bulls fans blamed everyone but the Bulls club for their woes, that we'd decided it was the RFLs/collective sport's obligation to ensure that clubs were well run. And you may also ask how IMG saw Salford as anything other than a basket-case.

I'm glad good sense has returned and we can agree that this is all Salford's making and they must live with it!

(You wouldn't guess that from Salford's weepy little press-release though).

Edited November 9, 2023 by dboy

[Red Willow]

This is  a minority on the council causing the issues. Hopefully it will be resolved soon.

There was no chance of staying at the Willows.

If the plans for the stadium  hadn't been called in by John Prescott Salford would have built and owned the stadium. 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

What did Sale do to Stockport County? Serious question btw I don’t know. 

In short the Sale Sharks owner bought Stockport County and the ground, moved Sale Sharks in then quickly sold Stockport County. He however kept ownership of the ground and preceeded to treat Stockport County like 2nd class citizens and lodgers, such as they lost the club shop to Sales Sharks etc, in what was their ground

[north yorks trinity]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, for the sake of the fans I hope there is a positive outcome. 

[dboy]

The thing "causing the issues" is your club spends more money than it generates and relies on the fan-boy councillors (spending local tax payers money), to keep you afloat.

Run a sustainable business model and pay your rent!

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

In short the Sale Sharks owner bought Stockport County and the ground, moved Sale Sharks in then quickly sold Stockport County. He however kept ownership of the ground and preceeded to treat Stockport County like 2nd class citizens and lodgers, such as they lost the club shop to Sales Sharks etc, in what was their ground

Blimey that one passed me by, classic Union tactics. 

[north yorks trinity]

38 minutes ago, dboy said:

And what of the Salford tax payers?

If taxpayers money gets spent on RL I'd see that as a positive. 

[dboy]

2 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

If taxpayers money gets spent on RL I'd see that as a positive. 

I'd agree, but in this instance, that taxpayers money is paid directly to Peel Holdings, to make up the £600k short fall in Salford RDs rent payments.

 

[Damien]

I've always had a soft spot for Salford and would love to see them build as a club. They don't half though lurch from one crisis to another.

[dboy]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I've always had a soft spot for Salford and would love to see them build as a club. They don't half though lurch from one crisis to another.

I had similar feelings. You think "if Salford can mix it with the big boys, sign big names, get to finals" and let's be honest, play some cracking rugby, "then my club can too, one day".

Then you see that it's done because they spend their bill money on a squad of players they cannot otherwise afford.

It leaves a bad taste in the mouth. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by dboy

[north yorks trinity]

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

I'd agree, but in this instance, that taxpayers money is paid directly to Peel Holdings, to make up the £600k short fall in Salford RDs rent payments.

 

If that's what's happening I'd agree that's less positive but still better than a club going bust. But obviously IF that is the case I agree it's not sustainable and COULD explain the council's actions. 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

2 hours ago, dboy said:

More like memories of Bulls = squad they can't afford, not meeting their bills...fleecing fans in a desperate ploy to keep going...

That's not a dig at Bulls - that's history. 

Salford learned nothing from the Bull's demise.

At least the Bulls had a huge number of fans

[RigbyLuger]

34 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Blimey that one passed me by, classic Union tactics. 

Sale has been words we can't use on this forum for a long time, and should never be treated with anything other than utter contempt.

[The Masked Poster]

Has anyone mentioned Bradford yet?

[JohnM]

Iny opinion, I think that the Reds are ill-advised to air their issues in public through such a badly-written and somewhat incoherent rant.

Criticising "council officials" so directly is hardly likely to improve the situation, either. 

It seems to me that the Club is in need of some serious legal muscle and stress management. 

I'd hate to see them join Bradford in the glutinous ocean-bottom ooze.

[Ackroman]

The IMG gradings are going to be used to justify why clubs like Salford are holding the game back. 

For example, if you have limited resources and you allow a club to invest in a playing roster that creates debts, you diminish as a sport. Over 5, 10, 20 years this is a significant sum.

Whereas, if you invest with investors wanting to build a grade A franchise then the sport grows.

Thus the IMG gradings of Salford has proved to be optimistic. They know it, the RFL know it and now we have a mechanism to move Salford out of the nest and move an ambitious grade B club in that would be strategically valuable, so long as they come with investors.

Makes total sense when the focus is the game, not the club.

[Chrispmartha]

12 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

The IMG gradings are going to be used to justify why clubs like Salford are holding the game back. 

For example, if you have limited resources and you allow a club to invest in a playing roster that creates debts, you diminish as a sport. Over 5, 10, 20 years this is a significant sum.

Whereas, if you invest with investors wanting to build a grade A franchise then the sport grows.

Thus the IMG gradings of Salford has proved to be optimistic. They know it, the RFL know it and now we have a mechanism to move Salford out of the nest and move an ambitious grade B club in that would be strategically valuable, so long as they come with investors.

Makes total sense when the focus is the game, not the club.

It will(and is being) be used as an argument both ways.

 

If you don’t like the IMG grades it will be - look how can Salford be a grade B club in SL .

 

If you like the IMG grading system it will be ‘look this means Salford will lose their grading so its working

 

Even though im in the second camp as always the reality will be somewhere in the middle.

Salfords situation really is neither an argument for or against IMG clubs can and likely will face issues whatever the leagues structure 

[Tommygilf]

23 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

It will(and is being) be used as an argument both ways.

 

If you don’t like the IMG grades it will be - look how can Salford be a grade B club in SL .

 

If you like the IMG grading system it will be ‘look this means Salford will lose their grading so its working

 

Even though im in the second camp as always the reality will be somewhere in the middle.

Salfords situation really is neither an argument for or against IMG clubs can and likely will face issues whatever the leagues structure 

IMG Grading is a snapshot of what you have in the here and now at the time of the grading. That can, obviously, change. 

[Tommygilf]

Whilst I understand some will see dboy's position as that of an attack dog, the principle is correct imo.

Salford, on a basic level, do not have the money to function at the current level. One of the complaints in there is the club facing £1k extra a matchday from Car parking fees. From 13 home games last year, not sure how many in the cup and friendlies, one can see how small the numbers are. The necessity for the £175k council loan that is now being repayed is being blamed on not having heads of terms going forward which would allow them access to more funding. I'm not sure where this extra "matched" funding was/is coming from? Regardless, the sums are, relatively, small; indicating where the club is at the moment.

The Stadium company takes F&B sales and 8% of ticket income, rightly imo, because Salford have unreliably paid their main bills to them consistently for years - rent free periods, reduced rent, write offs of the CVA, its all been there. 

Its been an unhappy relationship for all parties since the start, but clearly the financial due diligence folk at the council are concerned about offering a tenancy on an asset to an unreliable third party. Perhaps the local mayor might be able to step in with his influence, but I would wonder how much political capital has already been used to support the club.

[DI Keith Fowler]

12 hours ago, dboy said:

FWIW, this press release is just an attempt to blackmail the council into paying more aid.

Will it work?

 

Read to me like a bit of brinkmanship to secure a better deal. The council are in the process of buying the ground it'll be a tough one to explain to taxpayers that they've, 1. pushed the historic local club they promised to protect out, and, 2. bought a loss making stadium and already lost one of the tenants.

[Dovster]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

It will(and is being) be used as an argument both ways.

 

If you don’t like the IMG grades it will be - look how can Salford be a grade B club in SL .

 

If you like the IMG grading system it will be ‘look this means Salford will lose their grading so its working

 

Even though im in the second camp as always the reality will be somewhere in the middle.

Salfords situation really is neither an argument for or against IMG clubs can and likely will face issues whatever the leagues structure 

It seems that IMG grading failed to pick up on Salfords financial situation.

The question is what else has been missed?

[Midlands hobo]

13 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Memories of 2011, Crusaders and licencing.......

Crusaders were no different to many clubs and suffered a fate many clubs could find themselves in. The owner Leighton Samuel pulled the plug on pumping cash in.

[Midlands hobo]

12 hours ago, binosh said:

Makes you wonder if the council are reluctant to offer Salford a new lease if they have already defaulted on previous arrears, the tax payer should not be funding a sports club.

Coventry building society areana.

[Bull Mania]

11 hours ago, dboy said:

Oh, I thought after Bulls fans blamed everyone but the Bulls club for their woes, that we'd decided it was the RFLs/collective sport's obligation to ensure that clubs were well run. And you may also ask how IMG saw Salford as anything other than a basket-case.

I'm glad good sense has returned and we can agree that this is all Salford's making and they must live with it!

(You wouldn't guess that from Salford's weepy little press-release though).

Without turning this into a glasshouse slinging match, your outrage and meltdown over us is curiousseeing as you support Wakefield. I mean they've not gone bust at all or tried fleecing fans (didn't they also sell "shares" a number of years a go) Or is all that different for you not to get outraged at?

Anway onto Salford. Firstly let's hope they get sorted. 

Does kind of bring the whole IMG thing into question that they're nearly a grade A (so a club we should all be striving to replicate) yet could go bust in a number of weeks. I think the reality isn't even spending beyond thier means, it's more they're just not sustainable as an SL club sadly. 

Fingers crossed the club pull through. 

[Expatknight]

It isn’t the Salford Councils job to subsidise a professional club, Rugby, Football, whatever, the club has to be sustainable in its own right or it will never survive long term. Council Tax  payers who aren’t Rugby League fans ( poor mad fools) would be quite rightly aggrieved to see their money spent on, what to them, is a private business . You have to feel for the fans, though. For far too long it would appear many clubs have ‘just got by’ spending money that they couldn’t really afford on players in the hope that it will come good in the end.