Salford financial issues(again…)

[JohnM]

It seems that the Salford Council's finance of the RHS Garden (where I visited Middlewood Scout Camp as a youngster in the late 1950s so take my share of the blame for it's dereliction) was cruicially part of a funding package from the RHS and various other public , private and other sources, too. it's all on th' Interweb.

The expected total cost of the project was £32.7m, of which the RHS invested £15.7m of its own funds and received (by December 2019) a further £12.7m through grants and fundraising, including a £5m grant from the Garfield Weston Foundation and further donations from Salford City Council.

If I were the Red Devils, I'd seriously consider throwing my hat in the Beaumont-Hearn Coalition. of Ultimate Rugby League.

https://www.rhs.org.uk/gardens/bridgewater/articles/record-donation-to-rhs-garden-bridgewater

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

When you allow clubs to dictate, you know that they will make decisions based on their short-term interests.

Until we get away from this governance system the same old problems will keep popping up.

 

18 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

looks like sales are incoming, especially with Salford voting in favour of giving other clubs dispensation to sign their players(even if it didn’t pass).

I do think it a tough one. If we buy into a Salary Cap, then I'm not sure allowing say Wigan, who are at full cap apparently to benefit from a freebie in their squad because Salford are in trouble feels appropriate. 

I'm not sure i have the solution, but I'm not sure I believe this is the best option around.

Edited January 14 by Dave T

[LeytherRob]

2 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It seems that the Salford Council's finance of the RHS Garden (where I visited Middlewood Scout Camp as a youngster in the late 1950s so take my share of the blame for it's dereliction) was cruicially part of a funding package from the RHS and various other public , private and other sources, too. it's all on th' Interweb.

The expected total cost of the project was £32.7m, of which the RHS invested £15.7m of its own funds and received (by December 2019) a further £12.7m through grants and fundraising, including a £5m grant from the Garfield Weston Foundation and further donations from Salford City Council.

If I were the Red Devils, I'd seriously consider throwing my hat in the Beaumont-Hearn Coalition. of Ultimate Rugby League.

https://www.rhs.org.uk/gardens/bridgewater/articles/record-donation-to-rhs-garden-bridgewater

Salford council will get far more return on investment for the RHS site than it will from any of the millions its dropped into the RL team.

[Martyn Sadler]

11 minutes ago, dboy said:

This problem didn't occur because of the way the game is governed - it occurred because a club continues to practice unsustainable business practices in the hope that someone else always bails them out.

If "the game" has failed here, it's in allowing a Bulls v2.

SRD are responsible for this mess.

Anyone who spends more than their income is responsible for the mess they find themselves in.

I can think of many organisations that are currently in this position.

The problem in this case is that it affects the other clubs and the competition itself.

To keep parroting the fact that Salford got themselves into this situation won't get them out of it.

Someone has to find a way out of this mess for the greater good of the game.

[LeytherRob]

Just now, Dave T said:

 

I do think it a tough one. If we buy into a Salary Cap, then I'm not sure allowing say Wigan, who are at full cap apparently to benefit from a freebie in their squad because Salford are in trouble.

I'm not sure i have the solution, but I'm not sure I believe this is the best option around.

Yeah I agree with the decision to not award the dispensation as it would unfairly advantage the top clubs already at cap. Too much scope for clubs to abuse it

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said:

To quote the Mayor of Salford: "It is disappointing and rather hypocritical that the Conservatives are using the Reds and the Lions as a political football, in contrast to their acquiescence with previous decisions to provide significant financial support for other cultural institutions in Salford, such as the £18m given to the Lowry since 2022, the £19m invested into RHS Bridgwater and the £20m sponsorship deal with the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra."

Whatever support the Council gives to Salford Red Devils seems to pale in comparison to what it gives to those institutions, worthy though they are.

I understand that at the meeting of the Super League today there was significant resistance to giving clubs salary cap exemptions to allow them to buy Salford's players.

With no alternatives put forward, including my plea for the owners of other clubs to offer financial support, I think there's now a significant danger that Salford will hit the rocks at some point during the season.

The Conservatives have absolutely NO say, NO power in what the  council does, or doesn't do, though.

It's been Labour for MANY years.

The current council comprises 

Labour 50 councillors 

Conservative    7

Liberal Democrats    2

Independent    1

Out of a total of 60.

This they can do what they want as long as it's in line with the appropriate finance rules.

 

Edited January 14 by JohnM

[dboy]

5 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Anyone who spends more than their income is responsible for the mess they find themselves in.

I can think of many organisations that are currently in this position.

The problem in this case is that it affects the other clubs and the competition itself.

To keep parroting the fact that Salford got themselves into this situation won't get them out of it.

Someone has to find a way out of this mess for the greater good of the game.

People only repeat that fact because certain others suggest it's someone else's fault/responsibility.

As we now agree that SRD caused this themselves, can we now agree that simply parroting that other clubs should bail them out is not a realistic option?

At the risk of "parroting" the truth of the solution, SRD need to cut costs immediately - that's the #1 thing that has to happen.

Perhaps then the current board should resign and a caretaker management be appointed by "the game", to get them to the starting line.

[JohnM]

13 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Salford council will get far more return on investment for the RHS site than it will from any of the millions its dropped into the RL team.

It is expected to generate £24 million a year for the local economy by year fifteen of its opening (2036).

..which is preposterous. How dare they take a long term view. It's been going a couple of years now, so it should have generated £24 million by now.

Edited January 14 by JohnM

[dboy]

If the fabled new investors are still out there, it's highly likely they will want to buy a version of the SRD that has as many of the liabilities stripped away and income improved to make the books more attractive.

The player fire-sale will move the club in that direction - assuming that certain players are on top-dollar wages.

[Archie Gordon]

This all needing sorting at the time of the gradings dry run for 2024. It definitely needed sorting by the outcome of the gradings for 2025. It is ever so UK RL to take the fingers crossed approach to a risk register.

[sweaty craiq]

31 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It seems that the Salford Council's finance of the RHS Garden (where I visited Middlewood Scout Camp as a youngster in the late 1950s so take my share of the blame for it's dereliction) was cruicially part of a funding package from the RHS and various other public , private and other sources, too. it's all on th' Interweb.

The expected total cost of the project was £32.7m, of which the RHS invested £15.7m of its own funds and received (by December 2019) a further £12.7m through grants and fundraising, including a £5m grant from the Garfield Weston Foundation and further donations from Salford City Council.

If I were the Red Devils, I'd seriously consider throwing my hat in the Beaumont-Hearn Coalition. of Ultimate Rugby League.

https://www.rhs.org.uk/gardens/bridgewater/articles/record-donation-to-rhs-garden-bridgewater

Its not Hearn - doesnt have the cash or US PPV pull.

[sweaty craiq]

15 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It is expected to generate £24 million a year for the local economy by year fifteen of its opening (2036).

..which is preposterous. How dare they take a long term view. It's been going a couple of years now, so it should have generated £24 million by now.

Life's easy when you play with other peoples money

[JohnM]

Who is it then? Can you say?

[Charlie]

21 minutes ago, dboy said:

If the fabled new investors are still out there, it's highly likely they will want to buy a version of the SRD that has as many of the liabilities stripped away and income improved to make the books more attractive.

The player fire-sale will move the club in that direction - assuming that certain players are on top-dollar wages.

Problem is with the vote today only certain clubs have cap space and quota spots available. There’s no way Salford can sell enough and clubs are not going to pay overs 

[JohnM]

In my view, no one really wants so see SRD fail, do they? Look at the roller-coaster ride enjoyed or endured by Bradford Northern/ Bulls ...and yet they are still going.

From Wikipedia so subject to the usual caveats:

By November 1987, Bradford had cash-flow problems and the local council refused to help financially, but appointed a special committee to administer the clubs' finances. In December 1987, desperate for cash, Bradford transfer-listed 22 players for a total of £210,000 plus Phil Ford for £120,000.

......

2012–2017: Administrations, relegation and liquidation

In March 2012 the club announced that it was in financial difficulties and needed £1 million to keep the club afloat. A public appeal saw a lot of new funds pour in from supporters, but following the issue of a winding up petition from HMRC for unpaid taxes the holding company for the club was forced to go into administration on 26 June 2012. The Rugby Football League announced that had the company been wound up then the team would be allowed to complete their fixtures for the 2012 Super League season under the possible ownership of a supporters trust

2017–2019: Fourth club....

well, you get the gist. Infinitely more complex than the SRD position, yet still going, still having SuperLeague ambitions.

[Wakey Til I Die]

4 minutes ago, Charlie said:

Problem is with the vote today only certain clubs have cap space and quota spots available. There’s no way Salford can sell enough and clubs are not going to pay overs 

This decision has put the tin lid on any kind of bidding war for the players and any hopes of Salford raising enough money have reduced rapidly. There will have to be an initial set of departures with the clubs with current space effectively having first pick. But given the line 'further proposals may be considered' in the RFL's release then the likelihood is more departures will have to come down the line, thus leaving Salford in an even weaker position. Unless a white knight comes riding in a the last second i'm struggling to see a way out for them.

[sheddingswasus]

3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

In my view, no one really wants so see SRD fail, do they? Look at the roller-coaster ride enjoyed or endured by Bradford Northern/ Bulls ...and yet they are still going.

From Wikipedia so subject to the usual caveats:

By November 1987, Bradford had cash-flow problems and the local council refused to help financially, but appointed a special committee to administer the clubs' finances. In December 1987, desperate for cash, Bradford transfer-listed 22 players for a total of £210,000 plus Phil Ford for £120,000.

......

2012–2017: Administrations, relegation and liquidation

In March 2012 the club announced that it was in financial difficulties and needed £1 million to keep the club afloat. A public appeal saw a lot of new funds pour in from supporters, but following the issue of a winding up petition from HMRC for unpaid taxes the holding company for the club was forced to go into administration on 26 June 2012. The Rugby Football League announced that had the company been wound up then the team would be allowed to complete their fixtures for the 2012 Super League season under the possible ownership of a supporters trust

2017–2019: Fourth club....

well, you get the gist. Infinitely more complex than the SRD position, yet still going, still having SuperLeague ambitions.

They also went bump in 1964

Edited January 14 by sheddingswasus

[M j M]

42 minutes ago, dboy said:

People only repeat that fact because certain others suggest it's someone else's fault/responsibility.

Has anyone seriously said that though?

[Charlie]

18 minutes ago, Wakey Til I Die said:

This decision has put the tin lid on any kind of bidding war for the players and any hopes of Salford raising enough money have reduced rapidly. There will have to be an initial set of departures with the clubs with current space effectively having first pick. But given the line 'further proposals may be considered' in the RFL's release then the likelihood is more departures will have to come down the line, thus leaving Salford in an even weaker position. Unless a white knight comes riding in a the last second i'm struggling to see a way out for them.

Think we’re going to end up with Salford pulling out of the comp by years end 

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, LeytherRob said:

Yeah I agree with the decision to not award the dispensation as it would unfairly advantage the top clubs already at cap. Too much scope for clubs to abuse it

I'm afraid what we're dealing with here is a choice between two imperfect options

1. Allowing Wigan, Hull KR or Leeds to have perhaps one extra player not count towards their salary cap

2. Allowing Salford to not be able to complete the 2025 season, because they're unable to get the cashflow boost of some transfer fees and are only able to reduce their running costs (which may not be flexible very quickly, given all players are under contract)

In a choice between 1 and 2, I think #1 is the best option, or the least bad option anyway. How big is the downside with option #1 really - teams that already win most of their games might win one or two more? Compare that to the downside of option #2... this isn't rocket science.

Yes, the situation is Salford's fault. But we need to evaluate what's best for the sport, not what punishes the person to blame the most harshly. 

[Dullish Mood]

6 hours ago, dboy said:

SRD are surely expected to beat newly promoted Trinity - why would it be anything of a shock?

We'll lose to worse teams than SRD and beat better teams than them too.

Standard.

Assuming SRD make it to the start line.

First reading just came through….. 600/400.

[dboy]

14 minutes ago, Dullish Mood said:

First reading just came through….. 600/400.

What does this mean please?

[sweaty craiq]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Who is it then? Can you say?

You can get a good idea with a decent investigation

[Southampton Leyther]

5 hours ago, Wakey Til I Die said:

This decision has put the tin lid on any kind of bidding war for the players and any hopes of Salford raising enough money have reduced rapidly. There will have to be an initial set of departures with the clubs with current space effectively having first pick. But given the line 'further proposals may be considered' in the RFL's release then the likelihood is more departures will have to come down the line, thus leaving Salford in an even weaker position. Unless a white knight comes riding in a the last second i'm struggling to see a way out for them.

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.

[phiggins]

6 hours ago, Charlie said:

Problem is with the vote today only certain clubs have cap space and quota spots available. There’s no way Salford can sell enough and clubs are not going to pay overs 

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