New drama

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

16 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.

Tommy, help me here because I'm obviously missing something but wouldn't Salford have known three weeks ago that their lease was about to expire?

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

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.

That's probably why Salford scored so poorly on their finances grading (less than 50% of available points).

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Tommy, help me here because I'm obviously missing something but wouldn't Salford have known three weeks ago that their lease was about to expire?

That’s puzzling me as well, why is this a new issue. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Tommy, help me here because I'm obviously missing something but wouldn't Salford have known three weeks ago that their lease was about to expire?

They would yeah, but at that time they would have had a contract to play at a venue.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Eddie said:

That’s puzzling me as well, why is this a new issue. 

Its not a "new" issue.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

They would yeah, but at that time they would have had a contract to play at a venue.

For three more weeks?  

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

For three more weeks?  

By the sounds of it the current contract runs from the start of December 202* to the End of November this year.

[Archie Gordon]

So the IMG system will green-light a club to play in SL without an agreement in place to play at a ground. This really shouldn't be coming to light as part of the public dry run. This is why stress-testing needed to happen much earlier.

[RigbyLuger]

2 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

So the IMG system will green-light a club to play in SL without an agreement in place to play at a ground. This really shouldn't be coming to light as part of the public dry run. This is why stress-testing needed to happen much earlier.

Weren't the clubs messing about, hence the process was delayed?

[Toby Chopra]

17 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

So the IMG system will green-light a club to play in SL without an agreement in place to play at a ground. This really shouldn't be coming to light as part of the public dry run. This is why stress-testing needed to happen much earlier.

Salford were fairly graded based on the situation at the time of this year's dry run.

However, if they don't have an appropriate stadium deal in place by the time the real gradings are done then not only will their grading sink but also they will potentially be in breach of minimum standards, threatening their SL place - as the club's statement itself says.

So I'm not sure what you think needs to change. If Salford don't fix this soon then it won't be IMG they'll need to worry about.

[Griff]

42 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

By the sounds of it the current contract runs from the start of December 202* to the End of November this year.

No good for 2024 then.

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Salford were fairly graded based on the situation at the time of this year's dry run.

However, if they don't have an appropriate stadium deal in place by the time the real gradings are done then not only will their grading sink but also they will potentially be in breach of minimum standards, threatening their SL place - as the club's statement itself says.

So I'm not sure what you think needs to change. If Salford don't fix this soon then it won't be IMG they'll need to worry about.

Not sure that's right. If this year's dry run was actually a live system, then the 12 highest scoring clubs would be in Super League in 2024. So, the point of these scores is to determine which 12 teams are in Super League in 2024. Given that, it does not seem right that a club scores 1.5 points for a stadium they don't have any guarantees of using in '24.

 

[Archie Gordon]

3 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Salford were fairly graded based on the situation at the time of this year's dry run.

However, if they don't have an appropriate stadium deal in place by the time the real gradings are done then not only will their grading sink but also they will potentially be in breach of minimum standards, threatening their SL place - as the club's statement itself says.

So I'm not sure what you think needs to change. If Salford don't fix this soon then it won't be IMG they'll need to worry about.

Surely the IMG system needs to be robust enough not to green light a club without a ground! This was supposedly a dry run for what 2024 would look like under the new regime. 

But let's take Salford out of it. If any club doesn't have an agreement to play at a ground in 2025, I'd expect them not to be among the 12 SL clubs announced in October 2024. The IMG system seems not to be able to cater for this.

[Taffy Tiger]

It's the same principle as Wakey and their new stand . IMG have said that only actual stands/facilities that are in use when the gradings are set can be counted , so Wakey didn't get the extra point for their new stand , they will in 2024.

You have to apply the same rules in reverse , so Salford ground met all the requirements for the 1.5 points when the assessment was done . 

Assessments are carried out annually , so if Salford are still in this stadium next year (when gradings are set) they will get the 1.5 points. If not then they will be assessed on the stadium they are using at the time.

 

In their defence , it would be very difficult for IMG to grade this area in any other way . You can't penalise teams on what may happen , in the same way as you can't award points for something that may happen ie new stand/ ground upgrade.

Edited November 10, 2023 by Taffy Tiger

[dboy]

9 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

It's the same principle as Wakey and their new stand . IMG have said that only actual stands/facilities that are in use when the gradings are set can be counted , so Wakey didn't get the extra point for their new stand , they will in 2024.

You have to apply the same rules in reverse , so Salford ground met all the requirements for the 1.5 points when the assessment was done . 

Assessments are carried out annually , so if Salford are still in this stadium next year (when gradings are set) they will get the 1.5 points. If not then they will be assessed on the stadium they are using at the time.

 

In their defence , it would be very difficult for IMG to grade this area in any other way . You can't penalise teams on what may happen , in the same way as you can't award points for something that may happen ie new stand/ ground upgrade.

If they lose their tenancy at the end of the month, it's over, there will be no "next season". 

 

"Our current tenancy arrangement expires on 1^st December. A failure to resolve places the Club at risk of a compliance issue with the RFL in respect of minimum standards due to not having a minimum 5-year tenancy agreement in place. As a result, this would severely impact our IMG grading and potentially put our Super League status at risk, reducing our central distributions from £1.31m to circa £50k per annum and effectively liquidating the Club."

Edited November 10, 2023 by dboy

[Toby Chopra]

36 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

Surely the IMG system needs to be robust enough not to green light a club without a ground! This was supposedly a dry run for what 2024 would look like under the new regime. 

But let's take Salford out of it. If any club doesn't have an agreement to play at a ground in 2025, I'd expect them not to be among the 12 SL clubs announced in October 2024. The IMG system seems not to be able to cater for this.

But presumably minimum standards will? Perhaps the gradings are a bit of a red herring here - if they don't have a stadium agreement at the end of 2024, they won't be playing in Superleague in 2025, and that would have been the case pre-IMG. 

That said, on reflection I do think you have a point in that the COMBINED gradings/standards regime does need a forward looking ability and if there isn't one then that does need looking at.

 

[Toby Chopra]

15 minutes ago, dboy said:

If they lose their tenancy at the end of the month, it's over, there will be no "next season". 

 

"Our current tenancy arrangement expires on 1^st December. A failure to resolve places the Club at risk of a compliance issue with the RFL in respect of minimum standards due to not having a minimum 5-year tenancy agreement in place. As a result, this would severely impact our IMG grading and potentially put our Super League status at risk, reducing our central distributions from £1.31m to circa £50k per annum and effectively liquidating the Club."

So for me, the issue is not, 'Why didn't IMG account for this in the gradings?' but rather 'Are the RFL/SL about to kick Salford out of the league entirely because they haven't got a stadium?'

I'm kinda amazed this hasn't blown up as an issue already. How does a club get within 4 months of the season starting without a stadium deal in place? I know for a fact that in football and in the dark side premiership these things need to be locked in place midway through the preceding season.

Or is there something I'm missing?

[Quinskolar]

2 hours ago, Andy JG said:

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

Salford City FC were very keen to share, an informal deal had been done with the SRD moving to Moor Lane. Looks like that could be on again if what we are hearing is true. Salford City FC were not happy when that deal fell through however.

[Taffy Tiger]

23 minutes ago, dboy said:

If they lose their tenancy at the end of the month, it's over, there will be no "next season". 

 

"Our current tenancy arrangement expires on 1^st December. A failure to resolve places the Club at risk of a compliance issue with the RFL in respect of minimum standards due to not having a minimum 5-year tenancy agreement in place. As a result, this would severely impact our IMG grading and potentially put our Super League status at risk, reducing our central distributions from £1.31m to circa £50k per annum and effectively liquidating the Club."

Hi dBoy , agree , but at the moment they are still in the stadium and if a new deal is agreed before next season then they will still be graded on AJ Bell in 2024 .

You are right though , if they don't and can't find another stadium to play out of then they will not be in SL in 2024 .

What would be the situation with the Salford Football ground ? I guess there may be an opportunity for them to move there . However , if they did then the IMG stadium assessment would then grade them on that stadium in 2024.

[JohnM]

I have to say, the BBC report is more readable than the SRD statement: Salford Red Devils: Super League club claim they are 'at risk' due to council stadium sale deadlock - BBC Sport

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

6 hours ago, Anita Bath said:

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?

 

Ownership/primacy of tenure is worth a mere 0.25 pts. No club without either of those should be eligible to be classed as an A grade.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

19 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

But presumably minimum standards will? Perhaps the gradings are a bit of a red herring here - if they don't have a stadium agreement at the end of 2024, they won't be playing in Superleague in 2025, and that would have been the case pre-IMG. 

That said, on reflection I do think you have a point in that the COMBINED gradings/standards regime does need a forward looking ability and if there isn't one then that does need looking at.

 

Minimum standards have been ignored for 15 years +. It's not going to change.

[Toby Chopra]

Reading the club's statement again I do wonder if they've cooked this up with Mayor Dennett so he can swoop in as executive mayor and get the deal done. 

It's a old political trick to blame the civil servants for something that the politicians have power to decide.

Dennet can direct the deal to be done providing it's within the law, he just needs cover to do it and overruling "prevaricating" officers is a classic way of doing it.

However, if Salford are freelancing on this they're taking an incredible risk with that statement.

[Toby Chopra]

Just now, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Minimum standards have been ignored for 15 years +. It's not going to change.

Well, the system is about to go through a massive change with an outside actor who has real power and little incentive to let weak clubs off the hook. We'll see.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

3 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

Well, the system is about to go through a massive change with an outside actor who has real power and little incentive to let weak clubs off the hook. We'll see.

There'll be no material change. The Cas bodge will confirm that......