Salford financial issues(again…)

[hunsletgreenandgold]

23 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

The people in charge of the clubs' finances aren't daft, they know what they personally have coming in and going out and they'll be able to make pretty strong educated guesses on the health of other clubs when factoring in ticket prices, attendances, the value of that clubs' benefactor and the size and quality of a squad - not to mention agents are notoriously loose lipped when it comes to salaries. Anyone looking at Salford in the past 3/4 seasons will know very quickly that they are struggling, especially on the back of the share issue which was basically a bucket collection. 

If Salford don't complete the year, it breaches participation agreements and might jeopardise the TV deal, not to mention clubs losing massive revenues from home games, especially any club that has loop fixtures against SRD. A £50k transfer fee plus some free player loans in return to keep SRD on life support until the end of the year would be a more favourable option to a SL club than an 11-team comp finishing the year. 

 

So what, you think all the other clubs get together to decide who's going to pay over the odds for what player....to help Salford? You're dreaming mate. 

[Celtic Roosters]

2 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

What fantasy land do you live in? Rugby League has very few rich men involved - this is part of the problem. Even local lads made good like Dunn and Ratcliffe wouldn't give RL their loose change. 

Don't look at the astronomical money involved in football today, you might pass out. 

I know there are no real money men in Rugby League. It is a game that is living beyond it's means. The money that does come in only goes to the top clubs too, and they throw the rest scraps. I would love to see who is solvent if Sky pulled out? I just preferred it when all the member clubs had a chance of winning something and it was less predictable. I only watch non league football as well by the way - every Saturday. Guilsfield last week and Stone Old Alleynians this week. I regularly turn down opportunities to watch both Manchester City and United - free!

[LeytherRob]

9 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

So what, you think all the other clubs get together to decide who's going to pay over the odds for what player....to help Salford? You're dreaming mate. 

That isn’t what I said at all. 

[phiggins]

9 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

So what, you think all the other clubs get together to decide who's going to pay over the odds for what player....to help Salford? You're dreaming mate. 

Depends what you consider over the odds. Warrington have offered a fee for a 34 year old that isn't sure if he's going to get paid. That's pretty generous.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

4 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

That isn’t what I said at all. 

"with the 11 other clubs now financially on the hook for Salfords failure to manage itself, be it through lost revenues or potentially having to fork out over the odds transfer fees to keep SRD afloat"

"There’s always been an element of charity in recent transfer fees"

"The club owners will know that it’ll be cheaper for them to pay fees that keep Salford afloat"

 

That all very much sounds like you think any transfer fees to Salford now or in recent years has been to assist keeping them afloat. I'm saying there's no way that's a thing. 

 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

7 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Depends what you consider over the odds. Warrington have offered a fee for a 34 year old that isn't sure if he's going to get paid. That's pretty generous.

if he's under contract and Salford don't 'want' to sell him, then a transfer fee is pretty standard. Wire need him as well so this is by no means 'charity' by them, as has been suggested. 

[LeytherRob]

2 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

if he's under contract and Salford don't 'want' to sell him, then a transfer fee is pretty standard. Wire need him as well so this is by no means 'charity' by them, as has been suggested. 

Transfer fees haven’t been standard in rugby league for decades, certainly not for 34 year old players.

SRD are on life support currently, barely managing to keep the lights on. Without getting that promised owner cash(which is looking increasingly unlikely) they’re not going to make their next pay cycle at which point everyone will be a free agent and the club will go insolvent. Warrington could quite easily wait out 2-3 weeks and get Sneyd for free and they will be well aware of this. 

[Wilderspoolmemories]

There's a rumour that we are interested in Sneeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyddddddddddddddd.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

2 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Transfer fees haven’t been standard in rugby league for decades, certainly not for 34 year old players.

SRD are on life support currently, barely managing to keep the lights on. Without getting that promised owner cash(which is looking increasingly unlikely) they’re not going to make their next pay cycle at which point everyone will be a free agent and the club will go insolvent. Warrington could quite easily wait out 2-3 weeks and get Sneyd for free and they will be well aware of this. 

I could send you links to many recent transfers, not involving Salford, that have very much included a transfer fee so you really are barking up the wrong tree that this is all to help Salford. The fact it does help them is a mere byproduct. Sneyd is their most valuable player asset, even at 34 and as such if he had become a free agent many would come sniffing. Wire have done the prudent thing and secured their man by the looks of it. 

[Padge]

48 minutes ago, Celtic Roosters said:

I know there are no real money men in Rugby League. 

Danson at Wigan is a billionaire.

[Charlie]

I’ve done my best to watch things unfold and take the new “owners” words but I truly believe Salford won’t exist by the end of the year! 
 

I do believe the owners are real but they may just want the land which makes a lot more sense. Not many people are willing the investment in a declining northern sports 

[Padge]

35 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

I could send you links to many recent transfers, not involving Salford, that have very much included a transfer fee so you really are barking up the wrong tree that this is all to help Salford. The fact it does help them is a mere byproduct. Sneyd is their most valuable player asset, even at 34 and as such if he had become a free agent many would come sniffing. Wire have done the prudent thing and secured their man by the looks of it. 

Transfer fees are based on the outstanding value of a players contract not on some notional slave trade price. If Sneyd is payed 50k a year and has 2 years on his contract left he is a £100,000 asset, if he has 6 months left he is a £25,000 asset.

The transfer value is set by the club when they offer the player a contract and they agree it.

[Worzel]

4 minutes ago, Padge said:

Transfer fees are based on the outstanding value of a players contract not on some notional slave trade price. If Sneyd is payed 50k a year and has 2 years on his contract left he is a £100,000 asset, if he has 6 months left he is a £25,000 asset.

The transfer value is set by the club when they offer the player a contract and they agree it.

Are you sure? 

[phiggins]

18 minutes ago, Charlie said:

I’ve done my best to watch things unfold and take the new “owners” words but I truly believe Salford won’t exist by the end of the year! 
 

I do believe the owners are real but they may just want the land which makes a lot more sense. Not many people are willing the investment in a declining northern sports 

I hope you're wrong, but fear you're right.

If I were a Salford fan, I'd be relieved if players are starting to be sold. No player is bigger than the club, and the club's future needs to be protected. This should've happened months ago, but the club seem to have taken an approach of extreme brinkmanship.

[The Masked Poster]

1 hour ago, Celtic Roosters said:

I know there are no real money men in Rugby League. It is a game that is living beyond it's means. The money that does come in only goes to the top clubs too, and they throw the rest scraps. I would love to see who is solvent if Sky pulled out? I just preferred it when all the member clubs had a chance of winning something and it was less predictable. I only watch non league football as well by the way - every Saturday. Guilsfield last week and Stone Old Alleynians this week. I regularly turn down opportunities to watch both Manchester City and United - free!

So why do you use such pointless terms as Super Greed and claim it's a rich mans game? Don't you think our players deserve way more money than they get?

Presumably you are a Rugby Union supporter from the 1890's.

[phiggins]

5 minutes ago, Padge said:

Transfer fees are based on the outstanding value of a players contract not on some notional slave trade price. If Sneyd is payed 50k a year and has 2 years on his contract left he is a £100,000 asset, if he has 6 months left he is a £25,000 asset.

The transfer value is set by the club when they offer the player a contract and they agree it.

A transfer fee is what is offered by a club and accepted for a player. Isn't what you describe the asset value of the player's contract in the accounts?

[Charlie]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I hope you're wrong, but fear you're right.

If I were a Salford fan, I'd be relieved if players are starting to be sold. No player is bigger than the club, and the club's future needs to be protected. This should've happened months ago, but the club seem to have taken an approach of extreme brinkmanship.

I am a Salford fan and trust me I’m not relieved, kinda accepted the club will go years of miss management poor stadium deals and so on 

[LeytherRob]

7 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Are you sure? 

Yeah none of that makes any sense and immediately falls down when you try and compare it to any recent transfer. Take Brodie Croft for example, he'd just signed an 8-year deal on marquee money(say £150k p.a.). Leeds bought him and Ackers for £200k. By the maths given Leeds would've had to spend £1.2M on Croft.

[Padge]

3 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Yeah none of that makes any sense and immediately falls down when you try and compare it to any recent transfer. Take Brodie Croft for example, he'd just signed an 8-year deal on marquee money(say £150k p.a.). Leeds bought him and Ackers for £200k. By the maths given Leeds would've had to spend £1.2M on Croft.

Depends how desperate you are to get shut, the maximum value is the contract value, you can get shut for less if the player agrees terms with the buyer. 

Players are no longer owned by the club (Bosnam ruling), a club places a value on a player by what they are willing to pay him. Players cannot be held to ransom.

[Just Browny]

1 hour ago, Celtic Roosters said:

I know there are no real money men in Rugby League. It is a game that is living beyond it's means. The money that does come in only goes to the top clubs too, and they throw the rest scraps. I would love to see who is solvent if Sky pulled out? I just preferred it when all the member clubs had a chance of winning something and it was less predictable. I only watch non league football as well by the way - every Saturday. Guilsfield last week and Stone Old Alleynians this week. I regularly turn down opportunities to watch both Manchester City and United - free!

Ok

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Celtic Roosters said:

I know there are no real money men in Rugby League. It is a game that is living beyond it's means. The money that does come in only goes to the top clubs too, and they throw the rest scraps. I would love to see who is solvent if Sky pulled out? I just preferred it when all the member clubs had a chance of winning something and it was less predictable. I only watch non league football as well by the way - every Saturday. Guilsfield last week and Stone Old Alleynians this week. I regularly turn down opportunities to watch both Manchester City and United - free!

That's an awfully long time ago when all member clubs had a chance of winning something... as soon as there is more than one division your alienating all those from the other divisions realistically 

In terms of being solvent there would definitely be some who would go immediately and others who would go over time and yet more that would have enough time to cut their cloth accordingly and therefore stay afloat. However, its an odd analogy becuase Sky money is income that they know so they plan on how to spend it and plan it into budgeting, its almost like saying "well without your wages you'd be skint" well yes, of course most would... some wouldn't, and some would be fine over time as they get another job. if we lost sky money they would need to find another income stream.. 

[johnh1]

31 minutes ago, Charlie said:

I am a Salford fan and trust me I’m not relieved, kinda accepted the club will go years of miss management poor stadium deals and so on 

Me too Charlie. Looks like the end for me. My Dad, his dad and myself will end up having supported the club for over 110 years. Sad times.

[phiggins]

25 minutes ago, Padge said:

Depends how desperate you are to get shut, the maximum value is the contract value, you can get shut for less if the player agrees terms with the buyer. 

Players are no longer owned by the club (Bosnam ruling), a club places a value on a player by what they are willing to pay him. Players cannot be held to ransom.

In football, which saw the Bosman ruling come in, players move for fees far in excess of the remaining contract value. It has to to represent a profit in the balance sheet. Though admittedly there may be a separate operational rule in RL in line with your definition that I’m not aware of. 

[Click]

2 hours ago, Celtic Roosters said:

I know there are no real money men in Rugby League. It is a game that is living beyond it's means. The money that does come in only goes to the top clubs too, and they throw the rest scraps. I would love to see who is solvent if Sky pulled out? I just preferred it when all the member clubs had a chance of winning something and it was less predictable. I only watch non league football as well by the way - every Saturday. Guilsfield last week and Stone Old Alleynians this week. I regularly turn down opportunities to watch both Manchester City and United - free!

You are truly a hero.

Some people will be calling you a martyr for sure.

[DG70]

Acquiring the land around the stadium makes business sense, acquiring the club doesn't, either way Salford cannot survive it would seem as a SL outfit, Sneyd gone, who's next? Its just unsustainable.