Salford financial issues(again…)

[Charlie]

8 hours ago, phiggins said:

Might see some clubs offer player exchanges, maybe even paying players off to make it feasible for all parties. 

Won’t work. And would be pointless unless the parents club pays there wages but why would they 

[Wakefield Ram]

Alternatively wait till Salford go into administration and then the players become free agents. 

[rugbyleaguerunner]

e just seen Salford tweet about first 3 games being on sale

 

They have 3 home games between Feb 22nd and April 10th, 2 of which are against Leeds apparently

 

How on earth are they supposed to generate a decent income with 3 home games in 2 months!

[sweaty craiq]

6 minutes ago, rugbyleaguerunner said:

e just seen Salford tweet about first 3 games being on sale

 

They have 3 home games between Feb 22nd and April 10th, 2 of which are against Leeds apparently

 

How on earth are they supposed to generate a decent income with 3 home games in 2 months!

Fans/sponsors rally around sell out all 3 immediately and put £1m in the bank.

Will they?

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

And the 800lb gorilla in the corner is 2027 and the TV contract. If Salford do fold in or out of season and the other clubs continue on their current self centered way there's a possibility that Sky will just walk away - they did it with the Dark Side without affecting their bottom line and the same would apply to us.

[sweaty craiq]

8 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

And the 800lb gorilla in the corner is 2027 and the TV contract. If Salford do fold in or out of season and the other clubs continue on their current self centered way there's a possibility that Sky will just walk away - they did it with the Dark Side without affecting their bottom line and the same would apply to us.

Would they if say a London took their spot now with no relegation unless by financial failure til 2027

[LeytherRob]

4 minutes ago, Chronicler of Chiswick said:

And the 800lb gorilla in the corner is 2027 and the TV contract. If Salford do fold in or out of season and the other clubs continue on their current self centered way there's a possibility that Sky will just walk away - they did it with the Dark Side without affecting their bottom line and the same would apply to us.

Why is it self centred of clubs to not want to fund Salford spending above their means exactly? The people in charge of SRD aren’t just going to clubs looking to survive, they’ve been looking to keep their playoff chasing squad from last year which they’ve make several senior additions to whilst also taking on a cat1 academy licence. 
 

SRD finishing 4th with a squad containing the likes of Nene Macdonald, Tim Lafai, Marc Sneyd, Kallum Watkins etc and going bust are not the only two options available here.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Why is it self centred of clubs to not want to fund Salford spending above their means exactly? The people in charge of SRD aren’t just going to clubs looking to survive, they’ve been looking to keep their playoff chasing squad from last year which they’ve make several senior additions to whilst also taking on a cat1 academy licence. 
 

SRD finishing 4th with a squad containing the likes of Nene Macdonald, Tim Lafai, Marc Sneyd, Kallum Watkins etc and going bust are not the only two options available here.

It's just lazy soundbites that RL deals in.

People won't accept that their idea isn't the only one or maybe not the best one - so it has to be that the clubs are self-serving etc. 

[binosh]

If Salford were serious about their predicament they wouldn’t have waited for the involvement of the RFL and would have sold players on at the end of the regular season after the loss to Leigh, instead they chose to spend yet more imaginary money on lucrative contracts for Hill, Bullock, Sangare and Marsters whilst applying for Elite Academy at a cost of around £250k (minimum) per annum. Their board just don’t take things seriously.

[Harry Stottle]

35 minutes ago, binosh said:

If Salford were serious about their predicament they wouldn’t have waited for the involvement of the RFL and would have sold players on at the end of the regular season after the loss to Leigh, instead they chose to spend yet more imaginary money on lucrative contracts for Hill, Bullock, Sangare and Marsters whilst applying for Elite Academy at a cost of around £250k (minimum) per annum. Their board just don’t take things seriously.

Hammer, nail, head!

What you say here is exactly right, the club knew it's own monetary situation better than anyone else and still chose to spend more of what they did not have, it is akin to financial Hara Kiri.

I quite like SRD and always have done, went along to give my support to them many times when my team were in the Championship and fixtures didn't coincide.

 

Edited January 15 by Harry Stottle

[Worzel]

49 minutes ago, binosh said:

If Salford were serious about their predicament they wouldn’t have waited for the involvement of the RFL and would have sold players on at the end of the regular season after the loss to Leigh, instead they chose to spend yet more imaginary money on lucrative contracts for Hill, Bullock, Sangare and Marsters whilst applying for Elite Academy at a cost of around £250k (minimum) per annum. Their board just don’t take things seriously.

This is very true. Running an elite academy for example is a worthy aspiration. But if you don't have the money, you can't do it. These are pretty straightforward decisions. 

That being said, we are where we are now, and the other 11 clubs need to think about what's in the best interests of the comp and their overall collective value. That is to enable Salford to finish the season, and for us (if necessary) to replace them with one of at least 3 clubs who would like their space in 2026. Smooth transition without disruption to the overall value of the collective endeavour. That should be the only goal.

 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, binosh said:

If Salford were serious about their predicament they wouldn’t have waited for the involvement of the RFL and would have sold players on at the end of the regular season after the loss to Leigh, instead they chose to spend yet more imaginary money on lucrative contracts for Hill, Bullock, Sangare and Marsters whilst applying for Elite Academy at a cost of around £250k (minimum) per annum. Their board just don’t take things seriously.

Whilst the overall point may be fair around challenging Salford to cut costs, I don't really think that is a list of players that are on lucrative contracts. With perhaps the exception of Chris Hill (although I expect he will be ok value at this stage), they do seem to be the more bargain basement end of the transfer market that we regularly see Salford signing.

[DoubleD]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst the overall point may be fair around challenging Salford to cut costs, I don't really think that is a list of players that are on lucrative contracts. With perhaps the exception of Chris Hill (although I expect he will be ok value at this stage), they do seem to be the more bargain basement end of the transfer market that we regularly see Salford signing.

Marsters was on a hefty wage at the Giants, and Salford 'enticed' him over............he will be on a 6 figure deal for sure

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

Marsters was on a hefty wage at the Giants, and Salford 'enticed' him over............he will be on a 6 figure deal for sure

Maybe, although we never know player salaries, but my overall point remains, that the players that Salford have been signing are hardly hugely lucrative signings. There is a very fair argument that Salford are not capable of being an SL club if they can't survive even when they pay one of the lowest playing budgets in the comp - but we don't need to overstate how frivolous they have been with building their squad. 

They spend bottom end on wages, they sign cast offs and old players in the main, they are trying to invest in youth development with an academy - these aren't the actions of a reckless management team who are going for sh** or bust. Alongside this stuff they are also trying to recruit sponsors, grow crowds, attract investment, negotiate attractive tenancy agreement etc. 

Ultimately, they haven't been able to increase the income levels to where they need to be, and I'm sure where they hoped to be. 

This is a story of a club who is struggling to generate income, not one of a club arrogantly signing star players ignoring everything else. Now, the outcome may be the same, but I have more sympathy for one. It's easy for people to say only spend money you have, but that isn't how it works - you budget based on projections, if they don't come in, there is a hole. That hole appears to be too big for them.

But I just can't accept an argument that claims signing the likes of Joe Bullock on a lucrative wage is a reason why they are here. 

[dboy]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Maybe, although we never know player salaries, but my overall point remains, that the players that Salford have been signing are hardly hugely lucrative signings. There is a very fair argument that Salford are not capable of being an SL club if they can't survive even when they pay one of the lowest playing budgets in the comp - but we don't need to overstate how frivolous they have been with building their squad. 

They spend bottom end on wages, they sign cast offs and old players in the main, they are trying to invest in youth development with an academy - these aren't the actions of a reckless management team who are going for sh** or bust. Alongside this stuff they are also trying to recruit sponsors, grow crowds, attract investment, negotiate attractive tenancy agreement etc. 

Ultimately, they haven't been able to increase the income levels to where they need to be, and I'm sure where they hoped to be. 

This is a story of a club who is struggling to generate income, not one of a club arrogantly signing star players ignoring everything else. Now, the outcome may be the same, but I have more sympathy for one. It's easy for people to say only spend money you have, but that isn't how it works - you budget based on projections, if they don't come in, there is a hole. That hole appears to be too big for them.

But I just can't accept an argument that claims signing the likes of Joe Bullock on a lucrative wage is a reason why they are here. 

If this had been a "year 1", oops we've got our projections out a bit, then I'd be tempted to agree, but it's not year 1 - it's historic and repeated.

Furthermore, the shortfalls in operating capital are huge; it goes way beyond a "rounding up" error.

 

[JohnM]

I hear that Manchester Business School will be approaching a number of TRL posters to become Sports  Business Consultants because of their in-depth knowledge and experience in the finance and operation of professional rugby league clubs.

Sure, there are genuine issues surrounding the long and short term problems of SRD but at times they seem to be obscured by posters emotions and scarcely hidden antagonism.

[dboy]

10 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I hear that Manchester Business School will be approaching a number of TRL posters to become Sports  Business Consultants because of their in-depth knowledge and experience in the finance and operation of professional rugby league clubs.

They certainly won't be approaching any Board members from SRD!

Edited January 15 by dboy

[Dave T]

37 minutes ago, dboy said:

If this had been a "year 1", oops we've got our projections out a bit, then I'd be tempted to agree, but it's not year 1 - it's historic and repeated.

Furthermore, the shortfalls in operating capital are huge; it goes way beyond a "rounding up" error.

 

I get that, and I do sympathise with the argument that if they lived broadly within their means and found their level, then it may actually be top half Championship. 

I don't think anyone is putting this down to rounding errors, what we are talking though in reality is a few hundred grand here and there, which on other club's accounts have come from reduced central funding and increased utility costs for example. 

[Martyn Sadler]

31 minutes ago, dboy said:

They certainly won't be approaching any Board members from SRD!

Speaking as someone taught business subjects in a university over many years, I can confirm that someone explaining the process of failure can be just as instructive as someone talking about the criteria for success.

It's a general truism of life that we learn more from failure than from success.

[dboy]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

Speaking as someone taught business subjects in a university over many years, I can confirm that someone explaining the process of failure can be just as instructive as someone talking about the criteria for success.

It's a general truism of life that we learn more from failure than from success.

"Every cloud..." and all that.

[Martyn Sadler]

2 hours ago, Worzel said:

That being said, we are where we are now, and the other 11 clubs need to think about what's in the best interests of the comp and their overall collective value. That is to enable Salford to finish the season, and for us (if necessary) to replace them with one of at least 3 clubs who would like their space in 2026. Smooth transition without disruption to the overall value of the collective endeavour. That should be the only goal.

I'm very glad you think like I do.

Now we only need to persuade the RFL and the clubs to think the same way.

[LeeF]

15 hours ago, Southampton Leyther said:

I'm not sure there was ever going to be much of a bidding war for Salfords players anyway. 

The obvious star player is Sneyd but he turns 34 in less than a month. Im sure some clubs would like to sign him but doubt anyone would offer a big fee to get him when he is approaching the tail end of his career. 

Some of their other more attractive options (Watkins, Lafai) turn 34 this season also. 

Nobody is going to offer a meaningful fee for Ormondroyd, Deon Cross or some of the other players allegedly gaining some interest around the rest of the clubs. 

They MIGHT get a small amount for Nene Mcdonald if multiple clubs were to go in for him but other than that I'd be surprised if any of their players brought in a fee that would be genuinely helpful to Salford considering the size of the hole they are in. It will purely be about reducing the wage bill to something approaching sustainable.

Reducing the wages bill to a more sustainable level would be a big step

[Worzel]

16 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm very glad you think like I do.

Now we only need to persuade the RFL and the clubs to think the same way.

I guess the RFL do, but are wading through the treacle of other people's competing agendas?

[Martyn Sadler]

4 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Reducing the wages bill to a more sustainable level would be a big step

Given that the majority of the staff will have the benefit of legal contracts, it would be interesting to know how you would achieve that goal.

[LeeF]

17 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm very glad you think like I do.

Now we only need to persuade the RFL and the clubs to think the same way.

So what should the RFL and the other clubs actually do that is within their gift? Fund Salford’s ongoing losses?  If so from where? What do Salford have to do for the remainder of the year in return?