New drama

[phiggins]

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 

The issue, (or possible issue), is that the period being assessed in the provisional scores has led to a stronger than expected score for Salford, but also the situation they find themselves in now. But I don't know enough about the small print (mainly in the minimum standards appendices) to know if such events would have an impact on their score in a live situation.

[dboy]

The Wakefield and Salford fan contribution schemes are very different.

The Wakey one was never badged as "fan ownership", and contributors knew they were funding some of the capital expenditure.

I think, for example, the fan money bought a state of the art mower needed for the new pitch type.

[Agbrigg]

18 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

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 . 

As far as I am aware it is illegal to do that. There are ways to loan money at market rates and there are also Grant schemes, but you just can't hand over money

[Catflap]

11 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

At least the Bulls had a huge number of fans

Not anymore...

[Sammo]

15 hours ago, Nate90 said:

I blame Sale Sharks they are like vultures. Look at what they did to Stockport County 20 years ago.

I’m probably out of the loop here, but how is this situation Sale’s fault?

[RigbyLuger]

42 minutes ago, Sammo said:

I’m probably out of the loop here, but how is this situation Sale’s fault?

They exist.

[Anita Bath]

15 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

Because its based on the previous 3 years.

If Salford end up homeless do you really think they’ll end up with the same grade?

The financial issues referred to in the article have not suddenly emerged….and the end date for their lease was also known wasnt it?

 

You would think that criteria used to produce a sustainable super league would pay attention to the security of tenure associated with the ground.

Own it? Yes/no

If no,  how many years left on lease?

 

[idrewthehaggis]

SRD officials ain't happy.

They are displeased with: "Inaction" and "pontification and procrasination"  of "some officials." of Salford City and StadCo who run the ground.

And thus feel the need to call this out to alert people, but most of all provoke resolution.

Their beef concerns-

How the Stadium transfer has dragged on, with a December date on tenancy approaching.

That a £115k plus agreed payment on food and drink was reneged on.

Torpor on what they call "state aid" (sic) (its development grants actually) following the club re-establishment as being a community business and raising £367k this summer.

That StadCo continue to rake off 8% of gate money whilst allegedly being "Inactive."

And oh a hike on the price of match day parking cost the club a grand.

And in consequence thhad to take out a SCC council loan, on which they have to buy interest. They could, but havent also pointed out that they also sold some able performers as well. 

Personally I am not sure if Poker Diplomacy is the way forward. It should certainly evoke a response. And aside from seemingly unhealthily triggered embittered Tory kidults, I am sure all of the Rugby League family wishes a more swift resolution.

Paul King of SRD meets the RFL suits today. I am sure a keenly worded missive from them will endorse this.

IdrewtheHaggis, myself now, will be at a wedding or two with those supposed "inaction" officials will be attending. Minds a JD lads.Yours an explanation. 

 

 

 

 

[JohnM]

Like everyone on here, I would hate to see the club go the way for Wakefield or Bradford, for example. Incoherence is not the way forward, nor is anger.  Of course, its tough running a club on the margins of rugbyleagedom geographically and culturally and since the late 1950s it seems to me that that the club has used a huge amount of energy in just keeping going. Commenting "aside from seemingly unhealthily triggered embittered Tory kidults" doesn't advance the case, either.  Hardly the expression of professionals.   Good luck to SRD, though, in keeping going. 

.

[idrewthehaggis]

15 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.

 

15 hours ago, dboy said:

Read the press release - lose their tenancy, lose their central funding, they're bust.

 

15 hours ago, dboy said:

THAT'S what it's got to do with IMG grades.

 

15 hours ago, dboy said:

AJ Bell.

 

15 hours ago, dboy said:

No, not at all.

I feel for the fans. Just like the Bulls fans previously, they have been taken for mugs.

The club knew exactly what they were doing.

 

15 hours ago, dboy said:

What, have a whip round maybe?

Or attend games in their tens of thousands?

 

15 hours ago, dboy said:

Not a fan of any club with this business model.

It only ever ends in tears.

It's unsustainable.

The folly of the fan ownership fundraiser was highlighted at the time - it's one-off banked and spent.

 

 

15 hours ago, dboy said:

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

Will it work?

 

 

14 hours ago, dboy said:

They haven't run this business model for 50 years.

It's gone this way since they took on a stadium deal they couldn't afford.

 

14 hours ago, dboy said:

Don't they write as taking an EXTRA 8%?

Anyway, I've worked it out. It's just a ruse to get visits to their website.

 

14 hours ago, dboy said:

This bit cracks me up - "there has been a developing narrative that the Club is not paying its way, when in reality the unfavourable terms of the current tenancy agreement is extracting from the Club’s key income sources, on top of rent."

 

YOU HAVE NEVER PAID YOUR FULL RENT!

 

14 hours ago, dboy said:

And then what?

And what of the Salford tax payers?

And what of the increasing rent-debt (also underwritten by Salford Council)?

And what of their ongoing mega-signings?

 

14 hours ago, dboy said:

Yes they did.

And I'm still waiting for them to pay the vet's bill.

In truth, I'm ###### off that the "game" has looked the other way whilst watching another Bulls-style implosion!

 

13 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).

 

13 hours ago, dboy said:

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!

 

13 hours 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.

 

 

13 hours ago, dboy said:

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. 

 

1 hour ago, dboy said:

The Wakefield and Salford fan contribution schemes are very different.

The Wakey one was never badged as "fan ownership", and contributors knew they were funding some of the capital expenditure.

I think, for example, the fan money bought a state of the art mower needed for the new pitch type.

Not healthy, certainly not clever or wise.

Aside from securing enough click bite coins to ensure Martyn and John reads this from their newly acquired sun kissed beach side bijou and topping up IMG "Fandom" points for SRD, seriously find something else and chill kid. Please. 

 

[Harry Stottle]

16 hours ago, Eddie said:

I hope the local community rally round and make the council aware of how much the club means to the city. 

I wouldn't bank on that as being their saviour, at least not after going round with the begging bowl earlier this season, then repaying the fans with selling off three of their best player's, could be a matter of once bitten twice shy, and Salford are my second favourite club so that is not said with any animosity.

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I wouldn't bank on that as being their saviour, at least not after going round with the begging bowl earlier this season, then repaying the fans with selling off three of their best player's, could be a matter of once bitten twice shy, and Salford are my second favourite club so that is not said with any animosity.

And Salford's collection buckets are currently on dual reg at London Skolars.

[Harry Stottle]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

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

But will it so quickly, it will just show a flaw in the system.

[Harry Stottle]

5 hours ago, Expatknight said:

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. 

That is/was done to secure the Central Funding, currently £800,000 per season light what it was just 6 years ago, this is the third 'Finacial' crises that Salford have taken cause to bring to the public's attention in a matter of months, how they have apparently got through IMG's financial metric beggars belief, as was suggested earlier all clubs need to be audited and at the same time to make sense of the system.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Harry Stottle

[idrewthehaggis]

Tory kidults on the council fella.

Using the ground transfer as a political football, obstruction to score points, grandstanding causing delay, costing SRD, SCC and most importantly Salfordians money. Their money.

As a reminder, the stadium transfer is not about sport.

SCC rents a number of offices throughout the city to accommodate their services.

Simply because they do not have enough space to house all their staff.

Acquiring the Stadium allows the council to stop paying rent and use that money elsewhere.

The stadium has around c13k square m. The current price for renting a square m in Eccles is around £40/50 pcm. Go figure how much that saves.

However tell that SRD kids.

Enjoy the weekend people. Chill, relax and relish the sunshine.

 

 

[phiggins]

4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

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

I'm not sure I'd call it a snapshot of here and now. It's more an assessment of the previous three years on and off the field. The same three years that this has been rumbling on. 

[dboy]

1 hour ago, idrewthehaggis said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not healthy, certainly not clever or wise.

Aside from securing enough click bite coins to ensure Martyn and John reads this from their newly acquired sun kissed beach side bijou and topping up IMG "Fandom" points for SRD, seriously find something else and chill kid. Please. 

 

It's a forum.

Don't like it, don't log on.

[dboy]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Like everyone on here, I would hate to see the club go the way for Wakefield or Bradford, for example. 

.

Sorry, I don't understand this point.

Wakefield didn't go bust, instead Carter took the club on and would only spend the money they earned.

It meant years of being largely uncompetitive, but it also resulted in a club that turns a profit and is self-sufficient.

That stability led to a new, extremely wealthy owner taking the club on.

Isn't that EXACTLY what SRD should be doing??

[The Masked Poster]

It's not only somehow relevant to mention Bradford, it's also apparently the fault of the Tories. 

Maybe looking a little closer to home might be more beneficial. 

Edited November 10, 2023 by The Masked Poster

[Coco]

I don't really understand what's going on with SRD.  Read the reports and still trying to understand why is this in the press. It's an internal issue with the council, and the council will decide how they will proceed. 

Financially it does not make sense the council continue to support the club, which it has been doing. I don't understand how SRD in any way helps the council. This is bad PR for the club. They should not be criticising the council with all the help they have provided to them. 

Is SRD sustainable in Super League. The answer seems to be an emphatic no. The council should SRD it won't be providing them with any further support. This is a disgrace to the council and Super League. Really bad PR. 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

But will it so quickly, it will just show a flaw in the system.

In fairness H, this lease of the stadium, or lack of, wasn't an issue 3 weeks ago, and will only be one if it isn't resolved by December.

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, phiggins said:

I'm not sure I'd call it a snapshot of here and now. It's more an assessment of the previous three years on and off the field. The same three years that this has been rumbling on. 

I mean in the sense that it judges what is there right now, not what might be or could happen. 

Fwiw, Salford scored really poorly on Finances and not great on Stadium either. Without improving particularly the former, they will likely never get an A Grade. That is what the Grading is supposed to do.

[Andy JG]

Will they have to ask Gary Neville if they can share the Peninsula Stadium ? 

[Harry Stottle]

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

In fairness H, this lease of the stadium, or lack of, wasn't an issue 3 weeks ago, and will only be one if it isn't resolved by December.

There is obviously grave concerns which has not just raised its head hence Salford going public now there is such a short time frame for the council to throw them a lifeline so to speak, it has been going on 3 years we know of.

[phiggins]

8 minutes ago, Andy JG said:

Will they have to ask Gary Neville if they can share the Peninsula Stadium ? 

Wasn't it looking like the the RL and football clubs would be swapping stadiums at one point?