Salford Bailout

[Angelic Cynic]

12 hours ago, Agbrigg said:

I would be interested to know how the council have got around the legalities of this. Surely there must be conditions and stipulations, for instance how it will benefit the wider community. Councils are not allowed to hand out money unconditionally  to any individual or private companies.

It's a bit rich this criticism of Salford/Salford Council coming from followers of Wakefield.

https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/people/wakefield-trinity-castleford-tigers-and-featherstone-rovers-to-receive-ps2m-cash-boost-each-3476262

Been some bickering amongst Super League club followers since IMG reimagined the Super League. 

[RigbyLuger]

Doesn't/didn't that money from Wakefield Council come with caveats on how it could be spent, community projects and such?

[Tommygilf]

23 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Doesn't/didn't that money from Wakefield Council come with caveats on how it could be spent, community projects and such?

Yes, of course.

It is specifically not for playing budgets and daily running costs; unlike Salford.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I think the 'potential' for the club has been tested on recent years 

A team that plays attractive rugby and had had success (made finals).

Yet interest and crowds remain at a low level 

Maybe the interest is just not there beyond a certain level.....and that level looks more like a strong championship club rather than a top flight club 

I think what Salford shows is that you can have that "success" but if there is nothing underpinning it then its incredibly fragile.

The Salford "club" ie the office and non playing department clearly aren't well equipped to take advantage of what you describe. You need that core infrastructure there to really boost things long term. Indeed you can do it with that core without the on field success as much.

Right now it seems Salford are (if they don't pay full rent and get repeated bailouts), just about able to put a team out on the pitch every week. After that, the "club" seems rather hollow in lots of aspects. 

[PREPOSTEROUS]

1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

It's a bit rich this criticism of Salford/Salford Council coming from followers of Wakefield.

https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/people/wakefield-trinity-castleford-tigers-and-featherstone-rovers-to-receive-ps2m-cash-boost-each-3476262

Been some bickering amongst Super League club followers since IMG reimagined the Super League. 

Whataboutary.

That isn't funding daily operation of the clubs. Without it they don't go under.

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

1 hour ago, Angelic Cynic said:

It's a bit rich this criticism of Salford/Salford Council coming from followers of Wakefield.

https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/people/wakefield-trinity-castleford-tigers-and-featherstone-rovers-to-receive-ps2m-cash-boost-each-3476262

Been some bickering amongst Super League club followers since IMG reimagined the Super League. 

The public of WMDC have benefited from the way Wakefield and Featherstone have used the cash.  Cas probably not.

Here's what Salford do with the publics money though.

Salford Red Devils insist £1.5m loan to council will be repaid despite financial pressures at club - Manchester Evening News

Salford Red Devils docked three wins for defaulting on historic debts - Manchester Evening News

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, RigbyLuger said:

Doesn't/didn't that money from Wakefield Council come with caveats on how it could be spent, community projects and such?

Yes, although it looks as though at least one of the clubs is getting around those obligations - seemingly with the Council's approval. As a WMDC council taxpayer I'd have preferred that £6m to go into projects that really do benefit the wider community and not PLCs.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

58 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think what Salford shows is that you can have that "success" but if there is nothing underpinning it then its incredibly fragile.

The Salford "club" ie the office and non playing department clearly aren't well equipped to take advantage of what you describe. You need that core infrastructure there to really boost things long term. Indeed you can do it with that core without the on field success as much.

Right now it seems Salford are (if they don't pay full rent and get repeated bailouts), just about able to put a team out on the pitch every week. After that, the "club" seems rather hollow in lots of aspects. 

Agreed...

Such a shame no one fancies investing a decent amount into both sides of the club 

A relatively small amount of money compared to football and someone could be in charge of a top flight sports team with thousands of fans ....weird it isn't tempting anyone 

Edited March 6 by Bedfordshire Bronco

[Eddie]

Are the forum members who think SL clubs voted Toronto out because of their financial situation now calling for Salford to be kicked out too? 

[Eddie]

24 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Agreed...

Such a shame no one fancies investing a decent amount into both sides of the club 

A relatively small amount of money compared to football and someone could be in charge of a top flight sports team with thousands of fans ....weird it isn't tempting anyone 

If I win Euromillions I’ll definitely do it, I’ve already cleared it with Mrs Edwards. 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Are the forum members who think SL clubs voted Toronto out because of their financial situation now calling for Salford to be kicked out too? 

Toronto left SL themselves. 

The vote was to not allow the Deoderant salesman in. 

[meast]

21 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Essentially the crowds are too small.

Salford's stadium deal has been far from ideal yes, but that is an issue compounded by the fact they simply do not generate enough income elsewhere. They can't generate funds from the food and beverages, but they don't generate enough from the seats they are able to sell. Likewise there clearly isn't enough cash flow in the club shop etc. 

 

21 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

It appears Salford also seem to spend beyond even their meagre means on the playing budget. 

Its like Huddersfield without Ken Davy.

 

21 hours ago, dboy said:

Nailed it!

Except Huddersfield part own their ground, meaning we keep a share of any profits the stadium makes, unlike Salford.

Huddersfield are run fairly sustainably, we don't have a club shop, so no costs involved, the merchandise sales is part of the contract with Oxen/EPS.

The catering is all done in house with the stadiums own catering and hospitality branch, meaning no outsourcing, so again, any monies are shared between the owner partners and reinvested back into the club 

Unlike Salford, we make money on concessionary sales at the stadium and it's bars.

Under Ken, and helped by the fundraising of the supporters association, the club invested heavily in it's academy and have reaped some rewards in that, unlike Salford.

The Giants also owns it's own training centre, where all the teams trains, meaning we don't need to pay to use facilities to train, gym use etc.

Ken and the club have also invested in the Laund Hill complex which is the home for all our teams except first team, this complex is run by a community trust, and run by the trust, the Giants and Huddersfield Laund Hill RUFC for the benefit of the community.

There is also the Giants' community trust which does lots of community work, ran the women's teams last year and also trains and runs the various cheerleading squads which regularly participate in national finals, their Zone HQ is also a busy hub during the week with indoor pitches, play areas, family areas and educational facilities.

It's amazing how many people think Ken just finances the first team squad.

So, no, Salford aren't like Huddersfield without Davy.

Edited March 6 by meast

[dboy]

4 minutes ago, meast said:

It's amazing how many people think Ken just finances the first team squad.

So, no, Salford aren't like Huddersfield without Davy.

No.

Ken bankrolls the whole club.

Without Ken, Huddersfield are exactly like Salford.

Ken = ground, player budget, discounted STs, training facility, etc etc.

Hudds can't operate as they do without Ken.

He writes off over £2m per year, every year.

[Tommygilf]

25 minutes ago, dboy said:

No.

Ken bankrolls the whole club.

Without Ken, Huddersfield are exactly like Salford.

Ken = ground, player budget, discounted STs, training facility, etc etc.

Hudds can't operate as they do without Ken.

He writes off over £2m per year, every year.

Quite, Huddersfield without Ken Davy are a much smaller club, let alone 1st team.

[Taffy Tiger]

2 hours ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

Yes, although it looks as though at least one of the clubs is getting around those obligations - seemingly with the Council's approval. As a WMDC council taxpayer I'd have preferred that £6m to go into projects that really do benefit the wider community and not PLCs.

Hi LTS

 

I presume you are referring to Cas

 

I have managed to get a bit more clarity and understanding regarding the funding

I think we (myself included) have misinterpreted the wording a little

I now understand it to be two different entities

The funding is for stadium improvements to meet any future RFL requirements . 

However , 'As part of this agreement clubs will need to produce and deliver a community use strategy as part of the funding agreement . This will need to show how clubs will increase community use and support and encouarge the use of grass roots rugby league'

As I am now led to believe this isn't directly related to stadium use. The resilience fund was given to the 3 clubs on the understanding that they would be shown to increase participation in the game at grass roots level in the area and also benefit the community . There is no specific mention of this being within the stadium

The Tigers Foundation has been doing this over the years and will continue to do so , and this will be documented in the annual reports to WMDC , a further requirement of the resilience fund going forward

Cas have now satisfied all parties concerned that they have met all requriements and as a result of this the £2M has been released to Cas to improve stadium facilities in line with RFL/IMG requirements.

 

On a separate note , weren't Wakey were given a £3M loan by WMDC to buy their ground 

 

Edited March 6 by Taffy Tiger

[dboy]

23 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

The resilience fund was given to the 3 clubs on the understanding that they would be shown to increase participation in the game at grass roots level in the area and also benefit the community . There is no specific mention of this being within the stadium

The Tigers Foundation has been doing this over the years and will continue to do so , and this will be documented in the annual reports to WMDC , a further requirement of the resilience fund going forward

Cas have now satisfied all parties concerned that they have met all requriements and as a result of this the £2M has been released to Cas to improve stadium facilities in line with RFL/IMG requirements.

On a separate note , weren't Wakey were given a £3M loan by WMDC to buy their ground 

 

So Cas intend to use evidence of something they are already doing to claim funding meant to be for something extra. Double dipping!

And no, WMDC did not provide the loan. They provided access, as underwriter, for the club to take a loan from the Local Government funding scheme.

Not a penny of WMDC money has left the WMDC coffers for the purchase of the ground.

[Taffy Tiger]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

So Cas intend to use evidence of something they are already doing to claim funding meant to be for something extra. Double dipping!

And no, WMDC did not provide the loan. They provided access, as underwriter, for the club to take a loan from the Local Government funding scheme.

Not a penny of WMDC money has left the WMDC coffers for the purchase of the ground.

Hi dboy

At the end of the day WMDC are satisfied that Cas have met the requirements for the loan from the council . 

Link to Wakefield Express article , published 10th April 2019 , clearly makes several references to a council loan . May have been under another pseudonym , but clearly from the council

 

https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/news/wakefield-council-papers-reveal-trinity-paid-significantly-above-market-value-for-belle-vue-ground-483449

Edited March 6 by Taffy Tiger

[meast]

3 hours ago, dboy said:

No.

Ken bankrolls the whole club.

Without Ken, Huddersfield are exactly like Salford.

Ken = ground, player budget, discounted STs, training facility, etc etc.

Hudds can't operate as they do without Ken.

He writes off over £2m per year, every year.

So the other directors don't put any money in then?

What about sponsors? Does that count?

Donors? Do they put money in?

What about central funding?

TV revenue?

Stadium revenue?

Nope?

Ok then I'll trust your word that Ken is the only one who puts money into the Giants

[meast]

3 hours ago, dboy said:

No.

Ken bankrolls the whole club.

Without Ken, Huddersfield are exactly like Salford.

Ken = ground, player budget, discounted STs, training facility, etc etc.

Hudds can't operate as they do without Ken.

He writes off over £2m per year, every year.

So basically, every other club won't be able to operate without an owner/chairman.

I've learnt something new today

[meast]

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Quite, Huddersfield without Ken Davy are a much smaller club, let alone 1st team.

We are a small club, but with a big history, we've never claimed otherwise.

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, meast said:

We are a small club, but with a big history, we've never claimed otherwise.

Similar to Salford then, except you have a chairman who backs you to compensate. Glad we've got that clarity...

[dboy]

14 minutes ago, meast said:

So the other directors don't put any money in then?

What about sponsors? Does that count?

Donors? Do they put money in?

What about central funding?

TV revenue?

Stadium revenue?

Nope?

Ok then I'll trust your word that Ken is the only one who puts money into the Giants

Salford have all those too.

The difference is Ken who writes off £2m every year.

Salford Council seem to be Salford's "Ken".

It remains to be seen what difference it makes to Wakefield. Under Carter, they only spent what they earned - as Salford should be doing in the absence of a "Ken".

Under Ellis, we are more akin to Hudds. Will Wakey be a loss-making vanity project like Hudds, or will Ellis ultimately want the club to be financially self-sufficient.

Fortunately for Wakey, he has the wealth to play it how he wants.

[Exiled Wiganer]

3 hours ago, dboy said:

No.

Ken bankrolls the whole club.

Without Ken, Huddersfield are exactly like Salford.

Ken = ground, player budget, discounted STs, training facility, etc etc.

Hudds can't operate as they do without Ken.

He writes off over £2m per year, every year.

Further up this thread, a Giants fan explained exactly what the current situation is. From that your portrayal seems wildly off the mark. Davy has clearly invested over the years - and good on him, nobody forced him to do so - but their model is meant to be as self sustaining going forward as possible (at least for its core business). 

[meast]

49 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Similar to Salford then, except you have a chairman who backs you to compensate. Glad we've got that clarity...

No, we've got an owner and directors who invest in the club to keep it somewhat sustainable.

Salford don't.

[meast]

46 minutes ago, dboy said:

Salford have all those too.

The difference is Ken who writes off £2m every year.

Salford Council seem to be Salford's "Ken".

It remains to be seen what difference it makes to Wakefield. Under Carter, they only spent what they earned - as Salford should be doing in the absence of a "Ken".

Under Ellis, we are more akin to Hudds. Will Wakey be a loss-making vanity project like Hudds, or will Ellis ultimately want the club to be financially self-sufficient.

Fortunately for Wakey, he has the wealth to play it how he wants.

Salford part own their stadium?

Salford have an academy producing good, young players?

Salford have their own training centre and community trust?

Salford have their own complex to base their reserves, academy, scholarship and women's teams?

I'm not sure they do.