Salford financial issues(again…)

[Worzel]

33 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

No but I'd like limiting factors, like being sustainable financially.

Any forward-looking test you defined would see the majority of clubs fail, or be totally subjective in its acceptance of “owner commitment to support”. Rendering it wholly meaningless. Unless you can show us one that wouldn’t?

We can’t predict the future. The current model assesses the past, and scored Salford very poorly on financial criteria. 

[The Masked Poster]

The painting of people such as dboy as people who hate Salford and want to see them disappear is ridiculous and insulting. Salford *have* been playing at an advantage over other similar sides who maybe didn't take the pee so much. 

It's hardly the first time this issue has been a thing. But I'm sure if (when) it happens again we'll probably be told that it's cos we hate Salford if we discuss it. 

 

[dkw]

7 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

The painting of people such as dboy as people who hate Salford and want to see them disappear is ridiculous and insulting. Salford *have* been playing at an advantage over other similar sides who maybe didn't take the pee so much. 

It's hardly the first time this issue has been a thing. But I'm sure if (when) it happens again we'll probably be told that it's cos we hate Salford if we discuss it. 

 

Its pathetic seeing certain people trying to curate this thread, telling people to shut up, asking for it to be closed etc. Yet they think everyone else is in the wrong. 

[RBKnight]

10 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Teams like Oldham, Toulouse etc are hovering waiting to take the Red Devils place in Super League in 2026 if the Red Devils financial situation doesn't improve.

This puts me in mind of the great Blackadder quote (to test a German spy) :

"I asked if he'd been to one of the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, or Hull"

[The Masked Poster]

34 minutes ago, dkw said:

Its pathetic seeing certain people trying to curate this thread, telling people to shut up, asking for it to be closed etc. Yet they think everyone else is in the wrong. 

Yes. I could well understand it if there actually was any vitriol involved. But it mostly consists of people asking questions and why wouldn't they? It seems to be a groundhog day type thing this. 

I think almost everyone would like to see Salford doing well, playing in front of packed houses and competing for trophies....but then this goes for all clubs and I think goes without saying (or it should) 

Patronising and insulting people definitely won't win over any friends. 

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

At least someone's being put into the club to supervise how the money's spent. I think that most of us here would consider Salford's main problem to be lack of support and I haven't a clue what to do about that.

[phiggins]

36 minutes ago, RBKnight said:

This puts me in mind of the great Blackadder quote (to test a German spy) :

"I asked if he'd been to one of the great universities, Oxford, Cambridge, or Hull"

“Oxford’s a dump”

[Bull Mania]

12 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Good to know that IMG are making sure the right teams are in SL. And yes this is IMG's fault, they devised the grading system that delivered Salford a top 12 finish.

There has to be changes to some of the IMG stuff for it to be a success. Stuff like this undermines the whole process, whether you love IMG or not. 

The thing that I don't understand is all other metrics are graded on current situations eg Bradford rightly won't get any points for displaying a pretty picture of a tarted up odsal (insert joke here)

Yet the financial pillar, this doesn't seem to be the case which you could argue is the most important. Even Salford have said they're financially unsustainable on the current stadium deal. If the stadium deal doesn't go through in 6 months time, Salford will be bankrupt. So I don't see how they can be graded as a sustainable club currently. It's not just Salford, Halifax tripled their financial score despite facing financial oblivopono throughout the year. 

I'm not saying everytime a club enters special measures or needs an advanced payment img points should be docked as things happen. But when off field is deciding who sits at the top table, to not lose any points for being in special measures TWICE in 12 months, or multiple WUP like Fax, it makes a mockery of it. 

[dboy]

13 hours ago, Segovia Carpet said:

@dboy having a tough day with his anti Salford vitriole.  Get some sleep lad or start a new craze.  Mabe discuss Wakeys chances for 2025.

Grow up.

Salford's financial mis-management is a fair topic of discussion.

Maybe take your club to task, rather than moan about other people's genuine concerns.

The problems are at your club - not with me.

Edited November 26, 2024 by dboy

[JohnM]

13 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Good to know that IMG are making sure the right teams are in SL. And yes this is IMG's fault, they devised the grading system that delivered Salford a top 12 finish.

Factcheck:  As you well know, IMG may have devised the grading system but the sport voted to accept it.  Are you suggesting such a commercially astute set of club boards like yours was in some way hoodwinked? 

a reminder: Voting for this proposal occurred on 19 April 2023. All 35 British RFL clubs of the 2023 season[a] received a vote, with Super League clubs' votes being more heavily weighted. A further seven votes were given to representatives from the community game in tiers 4 and 5 of the British rugby league system. With an overall majority needed to pass, along with a majority in each voting block (Super League, Championship/League One, and Community Game). The proposal passed 86% to 14%.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Bull Mania said:

Yet the financial pillar, this doesn't seem to be the case which you could argue is the most important. Even Salford have said they're financially unsustainable on the current stadium deal. If the stadium deal doesn't go through in 6 months time, Salford will be bankrupt. So I don't see how they can be graded as a sustainable club currently. It's not just Salford, Halifax tripled their financial score despite facing financial oblivopono throughout the year. 

I'm not saying everytime a club enters special measures or needs an advanced payment img points should be docked as things happen. But when off field is deciding who sits at the top table, to not lose any points for being in special measures TWICE in 12 months, or multiple WUP like Fax, it makes a mockery of it. 

If Salford entered administration, they would be relegated as you are automatically downgraded. 

For finances, Salford scored 2.15 out of 4.5. They scored Zero for their balance sheet as a score within that for example.

Because the clubs and fans wanted aspects like on field performance to have a greater role, then Salford being financially poor doesn't automatically mean they can't be one of the top 12 grades too. Whilst Salford are fiscally poor, they play attractive successful rugby in a high quality venue, in a strong area and are amongst the better supported English RL clubs at the moment.

We could make finances more valuable to the overall score, but that would have to come at the cost of some other metric(s).

[sweaty craiq]

33 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Factcheck:  As you well know, IMG may have devised the grading system but the sport voted to accept it.  Are you suggesting such a commercially astute set of club boards like yours was in some way hoodwinked? 

a reminder: Voting for this proposal occurred on 19 April 2023. All 35 British RFL clubs of the 2023 season[a] received a vote, with Super League clubs' votes being more heavily weighted. A further seven votes were given to representatives from the community game in tiers 4 and 5 of the British rugby league system. With an overall majority needed to pass, along with a majority in each voting block (Super League, Championship/League One, and Community Game). The proposal passed 86% to 14%.

John, I believe some detail wasn’t disclosed at that vote btw

[JohnM]

That may..or may not be so. But it's hard to imagine club owners who run in some cases quite large enterprises, not having had their finance guys carrying out some sort of due diligence on the proposals, and sharing the results, opinions, questions etc.

Edited November 26, 2024 by JohnM

[Exiled Wiganer]

16 minutes ago, JohnM said:

That may..or may not be so. But it's hard to imagine club owners who run in some cases quite large enterprises, not having had their finance guys carrying out some sort of due diligence on the proposals, and sharing the results, opinions, questions etc.

That seems to me to be an extraordinary stretch, unless you were in the room, and privy to the selection process.

If, for instance, clubs were shown the headings and principles, without all the fine details of the methodology by, say the RFL commercial people whose job it was to make this work, and who presumably vouched for its fitness for purpose, then it would be perfectly understandable for them to vote in favour. Looking at the headings, they are not an insane list, but the devil is in the detail and the application. I look at this entirely differently, as I can’t see how the clubs could have been expected to ask whether the evaluation was going to consider whether a business was built entirely on sand. Because that is so obviously part of the brief that it should not bear repeating. 

It is telling that the clubs passed this decision to RFL Commerical, as they clearly see their job to make sure this works. 

It is proportionate and rational to question what lead to this week’s chaos. Again, I would not be surprised if Toulouse are digging very deeply into who knew what and when. 

Edited November 26, 2024 by Exiled Wiganer

[Worzel]

4 hours ago, The Masked Poster said:

The painting of people such as dboy as people who hate Salford and want to see them disappear is ridiculous and insulting. Salford *have* been playing at an advantage over other similar sides who maybe didn't take the pee so much. 

It's hardly the first time this issue has been a thing. But I'm sure if (when) it happens again we'll probably be told that it's cos we hate Salford if we discuss it. 

 

Absolutely. My own club was relegated in the last match of the season by a Salford squad assembled with money that the club didn’t have, with the local taxpayers of Salford subsequently taking the hit. There are real-world consequences from clubs spending money they don’t have. It’s as much cheating as injecting steroids into a prop forward.

Why is it unreasonable to then want to discuss it, and even to apportion some responsibility to the club not playing by the same rules? 

It probably cost Neil Hudgell more than a million quid… so you can imagine how he felt last Friday to see them back in the same place again. It’s not good enough. They should have cut their cloth to their circumstances, as Wakefield and Castleford did, and experienced the consequences. 

[sam4731]

5 hours ago, gingerjon said:

So should that be worth more than it currently is and how would you have set it up so Salford scored low enough on it for it be worth demotion versus, say, Toulouse now getting a high enough score on it to come in?

I think the scoring could stay the same but that their could e certain factors that prevented you getting a place in SL regardless of your grading.

[sam4731]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Factcheck:  As you well know, IMG may have devised the grading system but the sport voted to accept it.  Are you suggesting such a commercially astute set of club boards like yours was in some way hoodwinked? 

a reminder: Voting for this proposal occurred on 19 April 2023. All 35 British RFL clubs of the 2023 season[a] received a vote, with Super League clubs' votes being more heavily weighted. A further seven votes were given to representatives from the community game in tiers 4 and 5 of the British rugby league system. With an overall majority needed to pass, along with a majority in each voting block (Super League, Championship/League One, and Community Game). The proposal passed 86% to 14%.

I'm not saying that what's happened isn't legitimate based on the criteria that has already been set out. I'm calling into question the negative impact that the criteria deliver.

[sam4731]

4 hours ago, Worzel said:

Any forward-looking test you defined would see the majority of clubs fail, or be totally subjective in its acceptance of “owner commitment to support”. Rendering it wholly meaningless. Unless you can show us one that wouldn’t?

We can’t predict the future. The current model assesses the past, and scored Salford very poorly on financial criteria. 

OK so if we go on this logic, my point could still hold water when next years gradings come out. Salford have demonstrated enough to suggest financial instability and will therefore be prevented a place in SL in 2026, if we're going with my premise. They would then have the chance to rectify that during the 2026 season and so on.

[The Masked Poster]

33 minutes ago, Worzel said:

Absolutely. My own club was relegated in the last match of the season by a Salford squad assembled with money that the club didn’t have, with the local taxpayers of Salford subsequently taking the hit. There are real-world consequences from clubs spending money they don’t have. It’s as much cheating as injecting steroids into a prop forward.

Why is it unreasonable to then want to discuss it, and even to apportion some responsibility to the club not playing by the same rules? 

It probably cost Neil Hudgell more than a million quid… so you can imagine how he felt last Friday to see them back in the same place again. It’s not good enough. They should have cut their cloth to their circumstances, as Wakefield and Castleford did, and experienced the consequences. 

This is the thing, there were consequences of Salford sailing close to the wind and hoping it will all turn out ok. Such as the cost to NH. 

What if HKR had spent money they didn't have to win that particular match? I'm pretty certain Salford fans wouldn't be saying "nothing to see here", they'd quite rightly feel aggrieved. It's pretty bizarre to try and stifle debate about such a topic and implies either guilt or extreme arrogance. 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

If Salford entered administration, they would be relegated as you are automatically downgraded. 

For finances, Salford scored 2.15 out of 4.5. They scored Zero for their balance sheet as a score within that for example.

 

I think this is an important point to note. The system should really keep financially vulnerable clubs as a Grade B as you are likely to score poorly on the finance pillar. 

Add to that, that if you have an insolvency event, you are then downgraded, so would be a Grade C and therefore relegated as a Grade C is not eligible for Super League.

So when people are asking for the system to take into consideration the financial performance - it does. What they are really asking for is the bar to be lower. That's fine, but people need to be clear that there are points available, and there is a consequence of administration. 

I would say that we really do need to be careful about wanting that bar to be too low, as it may be pretty ugly for the game if we start to relegate teams every time they experience a cash flow issue.

[Taffy Tiger]

6 hours ago, gingerjon said:

So should that be worth more than it currently is and how would you have set it up so Salford scored low enough on it for it be worth demotion versus, say, Toulouse now getting a high enough score on it to come in?

Not so sure about Toulouse

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/fragile-championship-club-facing-fresh-financial-issues-as-funding-cuts-possible#:~:text=Championship heavyweights Toulouse Olympique are,from the city being cut.

[Angelic Cynic]

On 24/11/2024 at 17:45, dboy said:

Has she got £3m to give you?

It wouldn't be an 11 team SL - both Bulls and Toulouse would take their chance.

 

Just as well,perhaps,that the RFL haven't promoted Toulouse to replace Salford.

These clubs that rely on councils.Pah! Not so lucky like Wakefield and Castleford. 

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/fragile-championship-club-facing-fresh-financial-issues-as-funding-cuts-possible

[daz39]

17 hours ago, Dullish Mood said:

Salford safe, dboy et al can have their blood pressure tablets and a nice lie down, thread can be locked.  Simply luvurly….

They're not 'safe', they have simply been bailed out for a few extra months, without another massive income source i doubt they'll get the same favour in 6/12 months time and i fear they will need it with the attitude of the fans/shareholders and board members.

If i was a Salford fan i'd be more concerned that this keeps happening and question what my club is actually doing to help themselves survive in future rather than 'gloat' they've been helped again.

[Ainley Top]

3 hours ago, Worzel said:

Absolutely. My own club was relegated in the last match of the season by a Salford squad assembled with money that the club didn’t have, with the local taxpayers of Salford subsequently taking the hit. There are real-world consequences from clubs spending money they don’t have. It’s as much cheating as injecting steroids into a prop forward.

Why is it unreasonable to then want to discuss it, and even to apportion some responsibility to the club not playing by the same rules? 

It probably cost Neil Hudgell more than a million quid… so you can imagine how he felt last Friday to see them back in the same place again. It’s not good enough. They should have cut their cloth to their circumstances, as Wakefield and Castleford did, and experienced the consequences. 

Wakefield and Castleford have been cheating the system for 20 odd years!

[Archie Gordon]

1 hour ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Not so sure about Toulouse

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/fragile-championship-club-facing-fresh-financial-issues-as-funding-cuts-possible#:~:text=Championship heavyweights Toulouse Olympique are,from the city being cut.

It's a worry when 12th, 13th and 14th on the gradings are in some trouble. Fingers crossed.