Salford financial issues(again…)

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Simon Hall said:

Not sure the club would have been doing to so well had it not been for the Post Office scandal either. 

They were doing well before that. It's a really odd assumption to make.

[Worzel]

15 hours ago, dboy said:

OK.

If Salford's players are on bargain basement salaries, as it seems we are now being led to believe...how the F do they end up with a £700k operating deficit???

If it's not going on players, where IS the money going??

You need to consider the revenue line, that's Salford's issue versus their competitors, not their costs. 

Without looking at the "big" clubs because that's not a fair comparison, another serial mid-table side like Castleford average 2,500 more than them at home games. That's 50% more than Salford, and probably at least £700k more per season in ticket sales alone. When you apply the same 50% uplift to other areas that link to fanbase size, from food and drink, to merchandise, to corporate entertainment and perhaps even sponsorship, then you can see how a big performance gap emerges quickly in a sport where things are already tight.

A club with a (relatively) small fanbase like Salford need an owner putting in over £1m per season like Ken Davy at Huddersfield in order to make things add up. Without one, you should either be 11th or 12th each year, or in the Championship, or going bust. 

 

[Worzel]

43 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

If Salford crashed out of SL this year and we only had 11 teams, there may well be a reduction in sky money due to less broadcastable games. 

If Salford were no longer the 12th strongest club and were replaced by a TO, York etc for 2027, it wouldn't have any effect on the sky deal whatsoever.  

I think what the RFL are trying to do here is ensure this is managed in a coordinated way, to avoid precisely the downside that Martyn is talking about. We can't pull in a 12th club at this late stage, so we need even in the worst-case scenario for Salford to start and complete the season. We can then manage the process during the next points assessment, and enter 2026 with the appropriate top 12 teams. 

This is exactly the sort of institutional governance role the RFL exists for.  

[Worzel]

32 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Neil Hudgell came within a whisker of walking away from the club after its relegation.

If he had done, I'm not sure the club would even be in Super League today.

This is true in a sense, but if we're going to address that subject properly it needs its proper context:

Neil considered his position for a few weeks, but when he saw that the fans had reacted by buying MORE season tickets than at the same point a year earlier, sponsors had reacted by renewing on increased terms, and senior players like Shaun Lunt had reacted by committing to stay and "right the wrong" rather than get a Super League deal elsewhere, he found the renewed energy within himself to do what we're doing now. That was precisely what I meant: Neil was disillusioned for a few years before we got relegated (like many of us were frankly), and it took our relegation for him - and us - to actually understand the genuine latent potential we had and double-down in order to take the opportunity. 

Just re: your "walking away" point, the Neil Hudgell I know would never walk away. The worst-case scenario would always be him paying the bills whilst he tried to find someone else to take it on. That's just who he is. The Post Office subpostmasters will tell you that. 

 

[Bull Mania]

1 minute ago, Worzel said:

I think what the RFL are trying to do here is ensure this is managed in a coordinated way, to avoid precisely the downside that Martyn is talking about. We can't pull in a 12th club at this late stage, so we need even in the worst-case scenario for Salford to start and complete the season. We can then manage the process during the next points assessment, and enter 2026 with the appropriate top 12 teams. 

This is exactly the sort of institutional governance role the RFL exists for.  

Agreed. Salford going bust before/during the season would be a disaster for the sport. Which is why I'm so annoyed the sport finds itself in this situation in the IMG era as their vision was based purely on business cases. Yet here we are mere weeks later after Salford were graded as the 12th strongest club but were a month from going bankrupt. 

The reported potential new owners need to have deep pockets just to get Salford through the season. Then they could find themselves in the champ regardless. 

[M j M]

3 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

Which is why I'm so annoyed the sport finds itself in this situation in the IMG era as their vision was based purely on business cases.

No it wasn't 

Edited January 13 by M j M

[Martyn Sadler]

13 minutes ago, Worzel said:

This is true in a sense, but if we're going to address that subject properly it needs its proper context:

Neil considered his position for a few weeks, but when he saw that the fans had reacted by buying MORE season tickets than at the same point a year earlier, sponsors had reacted by renewing on increased terms, and senior players like Shaun Lunt had reacted by committing to stay and "right the wrong" rather than get a Super League deal elsewhere, he found the renewed energy within himself to do what we're doing now. That was precisely what I meant: Neil was disillusioned for a few years before we got relegated (like many of us were frankly), and it took our relegation for him - and us - to actually understand the genuine latent potential we had and double-down in order to take the opportunity. 

Just re: your "walking away" point, the Neil Hudgell I know would never walk away. The worst-case scenario would always be him paying the bills whilst he tried to find someone else to take it on. That's just who he is. The Post Office subpostmasters will tell you that. 

 

The point is that Salford don't have a Neil Hudgell.

On the other hand, if Fred Done would come on board, for example, it would be transformational.

[phiggins]

3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The point is that Salford don't have a Neil Hudgell.

On the other hand, if Fred Done would come on board, for example, it would be transformational.

The other point is that Salford have been acting like they have a Neil Hudgell and subsequently getting in over their heads.

[Simon Hall]

33 minutes ago, Damien said:

They were doing well before that. It's a really odd assumption to make.

Is it? The club owner having an extra successful few years in business might well translate to his club having more money to spend and therefore more success. See also Leigh Leopards and the boom in static caravan sales since Covid.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

The other point is that Salford have been acting like they have a Neil Hudgell and subsequently getting in over their heads.

If you take away directors' contributions, Salford made the lowest losses in Super League in 2023.

[dboy]

40 minutes ago, Worzel said:

You need to consider the revenue line, that's Salford's issue versus their competitors, not their costs. 

Without looking at the "big" clubs because that's not a fair comparison, another serial mid-table side like Castleford average 2,500 more than them at home games. That's 50% more than Salford, and probably at least £700k more per season in ticket sales alone. When you apply the same 50% uplift to other areas that link to fanbase size, from food and drink, to merchandise, to corporate entertainment and perhaps even sponsorship, then you can see how a big performance gap emerges quickly in a sport where things are already tight.

A club with a (relatively) small fanbase like Salford need an owner putting in over £1m per season like Ken Davy at Huddersfield in order to make things add up. Without one, you should either be 11th or 12th each year, or in the Championship, or going bust. 

 

Absolutely.

So when running a business where you know this is your income base, why keep spending well above it.

It can only end one way.

Let's hope these new investors do take over quickly. The game doesn't need another club imploding.

[phiggins]

4 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you take away directors' contributions, Salford made the lowest losses in Super League in 2023.

Big losses with the means to cover them don't have the same impact as lower losses without any means to cover them.

[Dullish Mood]

8 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The point is that Salford don't have a Neil Hudgell.

On the other hand, if Fred Done would come on board, for example, it would be transformational.

I spoke to Fred in a lounge as he was on the next table at the GF last October about helping Salford.  “It’s not my sport mate”.   He simply isn’t going to give them a single penny, despite being Salford born and bred and worth circa £3,000,000,000.  Never going to happen.  Frustrating and sad.  He just views the Betfred sponsorship as (very) cheap business.

[Worzel]

58 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Under the current system (unless another club has financial issues) resetting and getting back into SL is going to be much more difficult.

The incumbency advantages of being in SL for grading will make it extremely difficult, and you have said yourself that this could be a stepping stone and medium term SL could become a closed shop. I can't see clubs getting the benefits you see in KR's year in the Championship, or the year Wakefield just had and then getting a chance to come back - dropping down is currently much more likely to mean no SL rugby for a long time.

I agree if a club spends more than two years in the Championship it becomes harder to then get back. But to be honest that was probably true for us in 2017 too to be honest. Remember that whoever replaced Salford in 2026 would still have 2 years of Championship data in their next 3-year rolling average, whereas Salford would at that point only have one year 'down' there, and so still at a relative advantage over that other side in terms of "performance" points. 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, Simon Hall said:

Not sure the club would have been doing to so well had it not been for the Post Office scandal either. 

The additional funding for Hull KR has come from other investors, and predominantly from James McNichol in particular, not from Neil. Although that stuff is being spent on longer-term things, the increase in the playing budget is more a factor of revenue growth: £1m+ per season increase in ticket sales, and merchandising and sponsorship income throught the roof. 

I'll ignore the mildly odd swipe at the idea of lawyers getting paid for doing work (which I don't quite understand, but hey ho), but for what it's worth those cases aren't as financially rewarding as you think they are, to say the least.  

[Worzel]

18 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you take away directors' contributions, Salford made the lowest losses in Super League in 2023.

I think it would be unfair to make the case that Salford have been profligate, they clearly have run on lower cost base than almost all - and perhaps all - of their competitors. But you can still be irresponsible without being profligate: They knew they didn't have a long-term investor to bridge the gap, so should have cut their cloth accordingly even if that meant almost-certainly finishing 12th just as London have done twice in recent years. I'm sure that would have resulted in them being a Championship club, but it is what it is and that's what responsible club leaders should have done, surely?

[Damien]

33 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you take away directors' contributions, Salford made the lowest losses in Super League in 2023.

Clubs budgeted and spent what they based on those contributions. Salford spent way in excess of what they could afford or could hope to bring in. Again.

[binosh]

49 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

If you take away directors' contributions, Salford made the lowest losses in Super League in 2023.

How does that work? They don’t pay any bills! 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Bull Mania said:

Which is why I'm so annoyed the sport finds itself in this situation in the IMG era as their vision was based purely on business cases.

Mandatory challenge to this point whenever it is made.

[binosh]

Martyn I’ve just read your League Express article, Normally i enjoy your work but I have to say this latest piece is really poor.

Firstly you are giving such negative vibes about the sport that any of the Sky heirachy who may potentially read that if they had any negotiating skills would definitely use that as leverage to reduce the deal even further thus fulfilling you’re own prophesy. Now o appreciate you’re not the only one, Rugby League in general doesn’t help itself.

Secondly, no owners in Super League are going to loan Salford money knowing what a horrific track record they have with money, these guys scrap for every penny they can.

Thirdly what makes Salford so different to Bradford, Widnes or Toronto for that matter that they would even consider such a ludicrous option? 
 

 

Edited January 13 by binosh

[Charlie]

26 minutes ago, Damien said:

Clubs budgeted and spent what they based on those contributions. Salford spent way in excess of what they could afford or could hope to bring in. Again.

I think his point was more broader as in if any off these owners left ( not saying they will) the clubs would be in the same spot as Salford. Hopefully img can improve the tv deal as it frankly embarrassing 

[JohnM]

Quite frankly, I find it amazing that Salford, and many other clubs for that matter, are still going at a pro level. 

The sport has been up against so many obstacles over many years. Indeed as far back as I can remember - which in the case of Swinton Lions and Salford is around 1959. In those far distant halcyon days of cinder terraces, outdoor unrinals and non-functioning WCs, of wooden huts for changng rooms and other such luxuries, a trip to Wigan or Warrington and definitely to Workington was an adventure, a Saturday day off, a Saturday day out to anticipate: no motorways to Featherstoneland, slow coaches evertwhere, Morris Minors and Austin A35s. People generally lived near their workplaces,  405 line 3 channel "H" aerial monochrome TV, Bill Bothwell etc ad somnum.

The sport in the UK has continuingly struggled to keep up with changes in society, in technology, in demographics, responding time and time again with short-term fixes that don't fix anything. In fact, the only constant has been change. Helped along by the sports own detractors who focus on the negative aspects and may not always provide constructive feedback or viable practicable solutions, we are where we are, in the 21st Century vernacular. 

So here we are again. Out-Done, trying to Hearn a living, de-imagining Re-Imaging.

Please god, let's just get the season  underway! PULEEZE!

 

 

Edited January 13 by JohnM

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, binosh said:

Martyn I’ve just read your League Express article, Normally i enjoy your work but I have to say this latest piece is really poor.

Firstly you are giving such negative vibes about the sport that any of the Sky heirachy who may potentially read that if they had any negotiating skills would definitely use that as leverage to reduce the deal even further thus fulfilling you’re own prophesy.

Secondly, no owners in Super League are going to loan Salford money knowing what a horrific track record they have with money, these guys scrap for every penny they can.

Thirdly what makes Salford so different to Bradford, Widnes or Toronto for that matter that they would even consider such a ludicrous option? 
 

 

Yeah I can't say I agree with any of that opinion piece I'm afraid.

As ever, the Bradford example is a fair one to bring up. I don't think the sport has ever come up with a clear response to situations like these - if Salford are too big to fail then surely Bradford were too, likewise if Bradford could have finances cut and the rest, then Salford shouldn't be preferred to any greater extent. Or do we say we have learned from Bradford, admit it was dealt with in the wrong way then and have a better strategy going forwards?

Wherever there is money being invested from outside, indeed from competitors in this example, those people have a right to know where this money is going. Martyn's idea seems to be for the club owners to gift Salford 6 figure sums each and let them carry on. That can't be right.

[sweaty craiq]

Strong RL areas will always find somebody to chip in, but all will have the ability to do so at varying levels. Salford is not a strong RL area, it’s no longer sexy as it was in the Willows days and another Wilky is hard to find. 
They seem to believe in giving tickets away to grow crowds but that creates even less value on the club, a classic was our play off game probably threw away £100k in ticket sales to not look silly on tv.

[Eddie]

27 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Quite frankly, I find it amazing that Salford, and many other clubs for that matter, are still going at a pro level. 

The sport has been up against so many obstacles over many years. Indeed as far back as I can remember - which in the case of Swinton Lions and Salford is around 1959. In those far distant halcyon days of cinder terraces, outdoor unrinals and non-functioning WCs, of wooden huts for changng rooms and other such luxuries, a trip to Wigan or Warrington and definitely to Workington was an adventure, a Saturday day off, a Saturday day out to anticipate: no motorways to Featherstoneland, slow coaches evertwhere, Morris Minors and Austin A35s. People generally lived near their workplaces,  405 line 3 channel "H" aerial monochrome TV, Bill Bothwell etc ad somnum.

The sport in the UK has continuingly struggled to keep up with changes in society, in technology, in demographics, responding time and time again with short-term fixes that don't fix anything. In fact, the only constant has been change. Helped along by the sports own detractors who focus on the negative aspects and may not always provide constructive feedback or viable practicable solutions, we are where we are, in the 21st Century vernacular. 

So here we are again. Out-Done, trying to Hearn a living, de-imagining Re-Imaging.

Please god, let's just get the season  underway! PULEEZE!

 

 

I agree with that, though to be fair here we are with a professional sport which despite being very limited geographically is the fourth (?) most watched team sport in the UK, and probably the second most successful minority sport in Europe with regard to attendances, after Gaelic football. Imagine how the game would be if it had been run well.