Salford financial issues(again…)

[Ethereal]

Monthly salary bill covered by WeDo finance again.

Either WeDo finance are in so deep they can't afford to cut their losses and are hoping for a rescue, or someone is bankrolling/guaranteeing this in the background.

[LeeF]

4 minutes ago, Ethereal said:

Monthly salary bill covered by WeDo finance again.

Either WeDo finance are in so deep they can't afford to cut their losses and are hoping for a rescue, or someone is bankrolling/guaranteeing this in the background.

WeDo are probably just processing the payments at this stage 

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Ethereal said:

Monthly salary bill covered by WeDo finance again.

Either WeDo finance are in so deep they can't afford to cut their losses and are hoping for a rescue, or someone is bankrolling/guaranteeing this in the background.

Baffling. There must still be a chance the stadium deal goes through.

[RP London]

8 hours ago, LeeF said:

It is down to the owners to let the fans know what is going on. It’s not the role of the RFL or the council.

Indeed, no decision will be made until October 16th on the 14 entrants to Super League, it would be very strange for the RFL to announce anything about it before hand. The council is likely not to make any decisions until their hand is forced, so 100% up to the club owners to say "we arent going to make it" or "we will be in we've done the maths (which I wouldnt believe)". 

I would not be expecting to hear anything from anyone, unless HMRC get tired of it all or something else is missed, until October 16th.

[LeeF]

16 minutes ago, RP London said:

Indeed, no decision will be made until October 16th on the 14 entrants to Super League, it would be very strange for the RFL to announce anything about it before hand. The council is likely not to make any decisions until their hand is forced, so 100% up to the club owners to say "we arent going to make it" or "we will be in we've done the maths (which I wouldnt believe)". 

I would not be expecting to hear anything from anyone, unless HMRC get tired of it all or something else is missed, until October 16th.

The Salford supporters should be putting all their efforts into creating a new club as that is the very likely outcome and if it isn’t then great stuff for them. 

Expecting the RFL or the council to comment is just a waste of effort. 

Saying the above I would fully understand if they have had enough with the “share scheme” and this year’s farce if they have just had enough and don’t have the will to do anything

[Celtic Roosters]

The 1873 Salford ·

Follow

tspedoorSncutl5aau1ci80308ctac249611g94l0gf2u82t2h3h36acf4th ·

 

 

Krisnan Inu resigns as director of Jacobsen Venture Group Ltd – the company set up to buy Salford Red Devils. …

See more

 

 

 

 

 

[The Future is League]

4 hours ago, Celtic Roosters said:

The 1873 Salford ·

Follow

tspedoorSncutl5aau1ci80308ctac249611g94l0gf2u82t2h3h36acf4th ·

 

 

Krisnan Inu resigns as director of Jacobsen Venture Group Ltd – the company set up to buy Salford Red Devils. …

See more

 

 

 

 

 

Stating the obvious, but that could be the end of them being a professional or even semi professional club

[RigbyLuger]

Why wasn't Inu put under more pressure to answer questions on his role during the season?

[Red Willow]

I don't have a lot of time for Inu, was disappointed he returned to the club after his sacking when a player.

I suspect the other company was the one that was set to take over the land deal anyway.

[Celtic Roosters]

[Toby Chopra]

1 hour ago, Celtic Roosters said:

They make it sound all so sinister but surely if Jacobsen are still operating in a way that suggests the stadium deal is still alive, then that's good news, as the club could still survive.

It's not news that the owners are primarily in it for the property deal - they've admitted that themselves - the problem was the deal fell through and threatened to take the club down with it.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Toby Chopra said:

They make it sound all so sinister but surely if Jacobsen are still operating in a way that suggests the stadium deal is still alive, then that's good news, as the club could still survive.

It's not news that the owners are primarily in it for the property deal - they've admitted that themselves - the problem was the deal fell through and threatened to take the club down with it.

Yeah, it's all just a load of random points tbh. I think raising the change in personnel and asking the owners for clarity is reasonable, but the rest is just guff.

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, it's all just a load of random points tbh. I think raising the change in personnel and asking the owners for clarity is reasonable, but the rest is just guff.

That's what happens when you get AI to generate your talking points.

[RP London]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, it's all just a load of random points tbh. I think raising the change in personnel and asking the owners for clarity is reasonable, but the rest is just guff.

"It has been suggested that...." and "It appears that...." is not a "statement" its a forum post.. the only thing of certainty appears to be (I know) that this appointment has been made.

[Just Browny]

2 hours ago, Celtic Roosters said:

Did anyone else read this with a Mick Gledhill voice in their head?

[RigbyLuger]

Did they ever find out what happened to the shares fans bought, or just not bothered about that?

[JonM]

1 hour ago, Toby Chopra said:

They make it sound all so sinister but surely if Jacobsen are still operating in a way that suggests the stadium deal is still alive, then that's good news, as the club could still survive.

It's not news that the owners are primarily in it for the property deal - they've admitted that themselves - the problem was the deal fell through and threatened to take the club down with it.

I'm fairly sceptical that they have any genuine interest in buying the stadium or a property deal, but I guess we'll see.

The latest name does appear to have some involvement with/ ownership of actual real businesses in clothes wholesaling and restaurants, one of which appears to owe over a million (and to have been lent a fairly substantial sum by one of its other directors). He does also appear to have quite a few other companies which are dormant but not dissolved, or active but with seemingly no revenue or assets. Find it highly unlikely that he's been named as a director as a way of getting the lucrative contract for meat pies at the stadium though.

[Toby Chopra]

19 minutes ago, JonM said:

I'm fairly sceptical that they have any genuine interest in buying the stadium or a property deal, but I guess we'll see.

The latest name does appear to have some involvement with/ ownership of actual real businesses in clothes wholesaling and restaurants, one of which appears to owe over a million (and to have been lent a fairly substantial sum by one of its other directors). He does also appear to have quite a few other companies which are dormant but not dissolved, or active but with seemingly no revenue or assets. Find it highly unlikely that he's been named as a director as a way of getting the lucrative contract for meat pies at the stadium though.

So if they're not interested in the club, or the stadium property, what are they in it for?

[Celtic Roosters]

21 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

Did they ever find out what happened to the shares fans bought, or just not bothered about that?

They were worthless.

[fighting irish]

22 hours ago, Toby Chopra said:

So if they're not interested in the club, or the stadium property, what are they in it for?

I refer you to my earlier post.

It seems to me that they were hoping for a cheap land grab in Salford and the council (in their wisdom) saw a nifty little opportunity to offload the burden of Salford Rugby League club by tieing the land deal to the assumption of responsibility for the clubs future and current liabilities.

The new ''owners'' have made it clear from the start where their interests lie and recent history has shown that the have no interest in Salford Rugby League club at all.

The council then shut down negotiations over the land, so the ''owners'' are left with an enormous white elephant that they had no affinity for in the first place.

Now I'm convinced they are holding the club hostage, slowly starving the club into even more immiseration in an attempt to embarrass the council and force them  back to the negotiation table over the land. The decent thing to do would be to close down the club (or sell it off) but then they'd have no leverage in the land deal.

This is a problem of the council's making.

Did they really expect these two men to remain loyal to a commitment that was forced on them in the first place? Any business man would know that this is a dead duck but local politicians have about as much business nous as roadside fruit and veg seller.

I think the RFL should just throw the club out which would allow someone else, to re-create the club and begin again. Tolerating this present ownership group any longer brings the whole game into disrepute and does nothing for the many fans, in the Salford area and beyond.

 

 

[dkw]

11 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I refer you to my earlier post.

It seems to me that they were hoping for a cheap land grab in Salford and the council (in their wisdom) saw a nifty little opportunity to offload the burden of Salford Rugby League club by tieing the land deal to the assumption of responsibility for the clubs future and current liabilities.

The new ''owners'' have made it clear from the start where their interests lie and recent history has shown that the have no interest in Salford Rugby League club at all.

The council then shut down negotiations over the land, so the ''owners'' are left with an enormous white elephant that they had no affinity for in the first place.

Now I'm convinced they are holding the club hostage, slowly starving the club into even more immiseration in an attempt to embarrass the council and force them  back to the negotiation table over the land. The decent thing to do would be to close down the club (or sell it off) but then they'd have no leverage in the land deal.

This is a problem of the council's making.

Did they really expect these two men to remain loyal to a commitment that was forced on them in the first place? Any business man would know that this is a dead duck but local politicians have about as much business nous as roadside fruit and veg seller.

I think the RFL should just throw the club out which would allow someone else, to re-create the club and begin again. Tolerating this present ownership group any longer brings the whole game into disrepute and does nothing for the many fans, in the Salford area and beyond.

 

 

Unbelievable that you allocate blame entirely on the council, everyone with half a brain could see this mob had no intent in making the club viable, they have twisted and squirmed the whole way through yet you think its only the council to blame?

they could easily have walked away at any time once they felt the RL side wasnt something they wanted involved in, yet instead they have chosen to act unscrupulously.

[M j M]

37 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I refer you to my earlier post.

It seems to me that they were hoping for a cheap land grab in Salford and the council (in their wisdom) saw a nifty little opportunity to offload the burden of Salford Rugby League club by tieing the land deal to the assumption of responsibility for the clubs future and current liabilities.

The new ''owners'' have made it clear from the start where their interests lie and recent history has shown that the have no interest in Salford Rugby League club at all.

The council then shut down negotiations over the land, so the ''owners'' are left with an enormous white elephant that they had no affinity for in the first place.

Now I'm convinced they are holding the club hostage, slowly starving the club into even more immiseration in an attempt to embarrass the council and force them  back to the negotiation table over the land. The decent thing to do would be to close down the club (or sell it off) but then they'd have no leverage in the land deal.

This is a problem of the council's making.

Did they really expect these two men to remain loyal to a commitment that was forced on them in the first place? Any business man would know that this is a dead duck but local politicians have about as much business nous as roadside fruit and veg seller.

I think the RFL should just throw the club out which would allow someone else, to re-create the club and begin again. Tolerating this present ownership group any longer brings the whole game into disrepute and does nothing for the many fans, in the Salford area and beyond.

The council's interest appears to have been to - repeatedly - help Salford out - but only as long as they were a legit Rugby League club. They have been criticised quite a bit for this.

But when the club became a front for the current owners they presumably, and quite rightly, decided things had materially changed.

And you think the council is being unreasonable? WTF?

Edited October 7 by M j M

[fighting irish]

15 minutes ago, dkw said:

Unbelievable that you allocate blame entirely on the council, everyone with half a brain could see this mob had no intent in making the club viable, they have twisted and squirmed the whole way through yet you think its only the council to blame?

they could easily have walked away at any time once they felt the RL side wasnt something they wanted involved in, yet instead they have chosen to act unscrupulously.

Did you read the post? Or just cherry pick the little (tiny) bits that suit this poorly thought through response.

''.... everyone with half a brain could see this mob had no intent ......'' So are you saying that the council between them, possess something less than half a brain?

Why do you think they have ''twisted and squirmed...''? Why would they do that? 

I have offered an explanation as to why they didn't just walk away but you seem to have missed it  completely.

It was the council that tied the assumption of the clubs liability to any potential land deal. Anyone with half a brain can see that that wouldn't work. So no matter what these scoundrels have done since, it remains the case that the council should never have tried to press gang  them into taking on the club, in the first place. 

So I restate my original claim. The council were either inept, which you seem to agree on, or deliberately dropped the ''hot potato'' into the laps of these two wide boys, hoping that they'd hold it (at least until people forgot the amateurish sleight of hand trick they pulled here) thereby wriggling out of the responsibility for this debacle.

If you want to get away with a veiled attack on me personally, you'll have to try harder. 

[JonM]

35 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

It seems to me that they were hoping for a cheap land grab in Salford and the council (in their wisdom) saw a nifty little opportunity to offload the burden of Salford Rugby League club by tieing the land deal to the assumption of responsibility for the clubs future and current liabilities.

The council spent almost £8 million on acquiring the remaining 50% of the stadium only last year. They've also loaned the club multiple millions of pounds. I think the council have gone above and beyond what could reasonably be expected and I suspect will find it very difficult to justify any  further handouts to local taxpayers. The council have already sold adjacent pieces of land to other developers, they could've sold the stadium to Sale.

What does seem to be the case is that reasonably large amounts of actual money have gone out of the club over the last couple of years and fairly large amounts of loans have been piled up, and anything that could be sold or borrowed against has been. There's no evidence of the new 'owners' actually paying money to acquire anything, just a bunch of shell companies with an ever changing cast of directors. 

 

[fighting irish]

3 minutes ago, M j M said:

The council's interest appears to have been to - repeatedly - help Salford out - but only as long as they were a legit Rugby League club. They have been criticised quite a bit for this.

But when the club became a front for the current owners they presumably, and quite rightly, decided things had materially changed.

And you think the council is being unreasonable? WTF?

I think it is reasonable to pull out of any negotiations with these two charlatans when they showed their hands but it was the council who press-ganged them into taking on the club in the first place. That's all I'm saying. 

It's like someone wanting to buy your garage, and you insist they take on child care for your children as a condition of the sale.

If you discovered they went on to neglect and abuse your kids would you claim to be blameless?