Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

You're peddling conspiracy theory when none is needed.

I've dipped into the thread for the last page or so and haven't seen anything resembling a conspiracy theory. Just a question as to whether Salford's low financial score was the correct score or whether it should have been lower. That seems a legitimate question and the answer could guide future iterations of gradings and/or prompt some action about the current iteration.

BTW I bear no ill will to Salford. It's where my mum and her side of the family hail from and whilst I don't feel any great affinity to the club I'd hate to see it fail.


Posted
8 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Just a question as to whether Salford's low financial score was the correct score or whether it should have been lower.

But it was low. They scored under half the available points.

  • Like 3

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted
9 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

I've dipped into the thread for the last page or so and haven't seen anything resembling a conspiracy theory. Just a question as to whether Salford's low financial score was the correct score or whether it should have been lower. That seems a legitimate question and the answer could guide future iterations of gradings and/or prompt some action about the current iteration.

BTW I bear no ill will to Salford. It's where my mum and her side of the family hail from and whilst I don't feel any great affinity to the club I'd hate to see it fail.

But no one who is questioning the score has been able to show which part of the scoring was wrong for them, it seems to all be based in "feelings".

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think the bigger question is how Salford scored any stadium points when they didn't have a stadium deal in place for 2025.

I'm not wading through this again but I thought they did/do have a deal, just the actual ownership of the stadium is changing so confirming legal requirements for sponsors is not possible until that is completed? Their tenancy is not in question as far as I understand?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted
Just now, gingerjon said:

I'm not wading through this again but I thought they did/do have a deal, just the actual ownership of the stadium is changing so confirming legal requirements for sponsors is not possible until that is completed? Their tenancy is not in question as far as I understand?

My understanding from the Salford thread is that they had a 12-month extension that runs out in days/weeks. There doesn't seem to be anything in place for 2025 because the council purchase hasn't happened. Happy to hear differently.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

My understanding from the Salford thread is that they had a 12-month extension that runs out in days/weeks. There doesn't seem to be anything in place for 2025 because the council purchase hasn't happened. Happy to hear differently.

Ah, okay. Yes, if that is the case then they really should have failed the “Is this stadium guaranteed for 2025?” question.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted
6 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I am not sure why you keep labouring a point I didn’t make. 
 

It really isn’t that complex. We have put in place a system in which a club has run into instant financial difficulties after being awarded a place in SL which was not decided on the field. That is a major issue. Hence the key questions… 
 

What does that say about the system? What does that say about how it was implemented? What did Salford know and what did Salford say? 

You are saying the same thing again and again.

Salford are, objectively, terrible based purely on the financial element of the grading process. Their score in that aspect reflects that. They literally scored 0 for their balance sheet iirc.

They are, over the full range of metrics, one of the top 12 clubs in the UK and France.

Our grading process, taking into account the views of fans and clubs, appreciates that more than just financial circumstances are important to the sport. Likewise, if Salford or any clubs financial situation becomes so dire they enter administration, then they are automatically downgraded and in Salford's case, as a B, they would lose their SL status.

TLDR: I don't know what you are complaining about.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Posted
50 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

I've dipped into the thread for the last page or so and haven't seen anything resembling a conspiracy theory. Just a question as to whether Salford's low financial score was the correct score or whether it should have been lower. That seems a legitimate question and the answer could guide future iterations of gradings and/or prompt some action about the current iteration.

BTW I bear no ill will to Salford. It's where my mum and her side of the family hail from and whilst I don't feel any great affinity to the club I'd hate to see it fail.

No, anyone who's made the effort to understand the grading system - whatever you think of it - understands why Salford got the number they did, and also that the current cashflow problems wouldn't show up in the grading.

Ignoring this and instead suggesting that something might be amiss is at best ill informed and at worst troublemaking.

None of that takes away from the fact that it IS a very serious situation and one that could have serious ramifications.

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think the bigger question is how Salford scored any stadium points when they didn't have a stadium deal in place for 2025.

Because the 2025 gradings haven't been done yet? And like the pending financial issues, the potential lack of a stadium has not happened yet.

  • Like 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

No, anyone who's made the effort to understand the grading system - whatever you think of it - understands why Salford got the number they did, and also that the current cashflow problems wouldn't show up in the grading.

Ignoring this and instead suggesting that something might be amiss is at best ill informed and at worst troublemaking.

None of that takes away from the fact that it IS a very serious situation and one that could have serious ramifications.

I haven't followed the process closely enough to know whether the financial scores are correct. That wasn't really my point. I was simply highlighting that asking the question doesn't really equate to conspiracy theory. It's the sort of question that would occur to most rational individuals.

If, as seems probable based on my incomplete knowledge, Salford's score was correct, it is then legitimate to ask whether the means of assessment could be improved on. If, after due consideration, the overwhelming consensus is that we have the best system we could have and that unexpected financial issues can strike the best run clubs out of the blue, then fair enough but I think to ask probing questions is not unreasonable.

Sadly, I have to agree with the summary in your final paragraph.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Hopie said:

Because the 2025 gradings haven't been done yet? And like the pending financial issues, the potential lack of a stadium has not happened yet.

That's correct.

But the gradings *for* 2025 have been done. You'd imagine you'd need a stadium *for* 2025 as part of that. I would, anyway.

Of course, the reality is that you don't. No disputes from me on that.

Posted
2 hours ago, dkw said:

But no one who is questioning the score has been able to show which part of the scoring was wrong for them, it seems to all be based in "feelings".

I am not sure whether you are saying my stance was in your opinion based on “feelings”, which I am guessing would be a terrible thing: what next, women voting? It doesn’t concern me or keep me awake at night. I have hopefully expressed myself sufficiently clearly by now: there is a great deal to know and understand about this happening so close to the award of places for 25. There is a great deal we do not know, and anybody in their right mind would want to look into whether there is anything actually to worry about (if not, then we can all go on with our lives), or whether it is as simple as Salford portray it and there is nothing to see here. However, if there is a fundamental problem with their financials which throws into question their future, then it would be insane not to look closely at the integrity of the process that was followed, in the 3 areas I have spelt out. Because this was a process which resulted in another club being denied entry into SL for 25. 

I will follow this story with keen interest, and genuinely hope it is non story. 

I do have misgivings, which I make no secret of, around asking IMG to do some of the things that they have done as part of this process, based on my own experience, so there is a large element of confirmation bias in my take. I readily admit that. 

l think Toby’s measured position is the one I think best addresses this issue. 

Posted
20 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I am not sure whether you are saying my stance was in your opinion based on “feelings”, which I am guessing would be a terrible thing: what next, women voting?

What on earth are you going on about. 

  • Like 4
Posted
10 hours ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

1. So the test is rubbish. A club could literally run out of money the next day and still get a good score. Or by historical do you mean you look at the past to extrapolate into the future?
2. And IMG played no part in asking questions or carried out any analysis/made any judgment. 
3. I beg your pardon entirely.  If you mean that nobody looked ant any projections or took a view as to asets/liabilities and their effect on future trading, then IMG are only at fault for the test being possibly the most useless financial robustness test in human history.
The IMG designed system has got off to a terrific start!

 

If the criteria involved an assessment of future financial strength to the detail you oddly expect, in a competition where several clubs rely on season ticket sales post-season and commercial agreements won post-season, then it would have so much subjectivity that everyone on God's earth would be up in arms about the scores.

"Yes, that was last year but look we're going to sell 20% more season tickets for next season"

"Yes, that was this year's shirt sponsorship, but seriously, I'm about to sign a front-of-shirt deal with a blue chip firm for double the amount for 2025, we're almost there on the paperwork"

It just doesn't make any sense. The model assesses the last 3 years, and uses that to form the basis of an evaluation of what is likely to be the present state. Salford scored poorly on that basis, rightly so.

You're desperately trying to apportion blame to an outside bogeyman. The fault lies with Salford, and the choices they're making with the resources they have, and have had consistently recently. It's nobody else's fault they have made plans more in hope than expectation.  

  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Worzel said:

If the criteria involved an assessment of future financial strength to the detail you oddly expect, in a competition where several clubs rely on season ticket sales post-season and commercial agreements won post-season, then it would have so much subjectivity that everyone on God's earth would be up in arms about the scores.

"Yes, that was last year but look we're going to sell 20% more season tickets for next season"

"Yes, that was this year's shirt sponsorship, but seriously, I'm about to sign a front-of-shirt deal with a blue chip firm for double the amount for 2025, we're almost there on the paperwork"

It just doesn't make any sense. The model assesses the last 3 years, and uses that to form the basis of an evaluation of what is likely to be the present state. Salford scored poorly on that basis, rightly so.

You're desperately trying to apportion blame to an outside bogeyman. The fault lies with Salford, and the choices they're making with the resources they have, and have had consistently recently. It's nobody else's fault they have made plans more in hope than expectation.  

I have absolutely no idea why you are finding this so difficult to follow.

Why is it “odd” to expect a financial test to consider the ability of a club to stay afloat? Forward looking tests are business audit 101. You seem to be saying that that would be some form of crazy witchcraft. I hope for your sake you never buy a business. 

I am not “desperate” in the slightest. Read the actual words, and take off your IMG t shirt and rose tinted glasses gift set. 

There is no need for a “bogeyman”. People successfully sue for missing out unfairly on business opportunities all the time, after supposedly competitive tenders. Usually they train their guns either on the person or persons applying the test or the person who denied them that opportunity. If the test is not fit for purpose, but has been applied correctly, then their case becomes much harder of course. 

This is a serious matter. Something has gone so wrong that the clubs are all meeting today to investigate a request - some might say a “desperate” one - to get an advance of funds because Salford can’t pay their bills. They are doing this within weeks of having been confirmed in SL for 25. If I were running any club I would want to know how this happened, what the assessments were meant to do, how they were applied and most importantly who knew what, and when. If I were in charge of Toulouse I would be very interested indeed. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Exiled Wiganer said:

I have absolutely no idea why you are finding this so difficult to follow.

Why is it “odd” to expect a financial test to consider the ability of a club to stay afloat? Forward looking tests are business audit 101. You seem to be saying that that would be some form of crazy witchcraft. I hope for your sake you never buy a business. 

I am not “desperate” in the slightest. Read the actual words, and take off your IMG t shirt and rose tinted glasses gift set. 

There is no need for a “bogeyman”. People successfully sue for missing out unfairly on business opportunities all the time, after supposedly competitive tenders. Usually they train their guns either on the person or persons applying the test or the person who denied them that opportunity. If the test is not fit for purpose, but has been applied correctly, then their case becomes much harder of course. 

This is a serious matter. Something has gone so wrong that the clubs are all meeting today to investigate a request - some might say a “desperate” one - to get an advance of funds because Salford can’t pay their bills. They are doing this within weeks of having been confirmed in SL for 25. If I were running any club I would want to know how this happened, what the assessments were meant to do, how they were applied and most importantly who knew what, and when. If I were in charge of Toulouse I would be very interested indeed. 

 

 

Your desire to blame IMG for the failure of Salford is woefully transparent, I’d respect you more if you were just honest about it.

The majority of clubs would fail any forward-looking test of the type you describe, rendering it meaningless in this context. They almost all run at a loss, and none of them have material forward revenue. 

Unless you can describe the alternative model that you’d apply to assessing clubs financial viability, in a way that would highlight Salford as a unique risk, then I’m afraid you have no credibility. 

 

Posted

I think a decent sense check here is to look at the clubs immediately below Salford in the rankings. This isn't a case of Salford being a basket case and there being a load of strong clubs forming a queue to take their slot.

These are challenging times, we are seeing clubs struggle all the time, more will happen soon I expect.

We've seen over the years how quickly things can turn South, so tbh, if we were going to have a real, genuine financial sustainability metric, I expect nobody would score well at all. If that was used as a way of excluding teams, we may not have a league. 

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)

It's not very difficult to imagine scenarios that are unlikely to affect all clubs but do demand a specific response.

IF balance sheet strength = 0 AND stadium tenure = 0 

might reasonably be thought of as one such scenario.

Edited by Archie Gordon
Posted
1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

It's not very difficult to imagine scenarios that are unlikely to affect all clubs but do demand a specific response.

IF balance sheet strength = 0 AND stadium tenure = 0 

might reasonably be thought of as one such scenario.

I suppose we need to be clear about what that's achieving though. I've only been casually following this story, but I don't think there is any doubt that Salford have somewhere to play is there? There may be bits of paper missing right now because of legalities around ownership, but I don't think any advance of money is to resolve a lack of stadium to play in.

I think that point is a red herring and not particularly relevant here.

Lack of money is. They could have an agreement to play games but it ain't fixing that cash issue.

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Worzel said:

Your desire to blame IMG for the failure of Salford is woefully transparent, I’d respect you more if you were just honest about it.

The majority of clubs would fail any forward-looking test of the type you describe, rendering it meaningless in this context. They almost all run at a loss, and none of them have material forward revenue. 

Unless you can describe the alternative model that you’d apply to assessing clubs financial viability, in a way that would highlight Salford as a unique risk, then I’m afraid you have no credibility. 

 

I have no interest in your view of my credibility. I have repeatedly questioned what the RFL has delegated to IMG. In fact it is pretty much a theme of all my concerns around the licensing process. As to forward looking financial assessment, that is not my home patch. Nor is it IMG’s.


I see that the clubs have left the decision to RFL Commercial who are writing the cheque. So, this may be a non story after all, and there may be nothing to see here. Or the clubs may be washing their hands of it, so that it is clearer where the responsibility may lie if Salford face more problems. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I have no interest in your view of my credibility. I have repeatedly questioned what the RFL has delegated to IMG. In fact it is pretty much a theme of all my concerns around the licensing process. As to forward looking financial assessment, that is not my home patch. Nor is it IMG’s.


I see that the clubs have left the decision to RFL Commercial who are writing the cheque. So, this may be a non story after all, and there may be nothing to see here. Or the clubs may be washing their hands of it, so that it is clearer where the responsibility may lie if Salford face more problems. 

You've had the answer multiple times, you just choose to ignore it: The RFL haven't delegated this to IMG. The RFL run the process. 

I bet you £100 the next time there's a critical issue like this, you'll look for the "it's IMG's fault" angle... 🤣

  • Like 1

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.