The Future is League Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 4 hours ago, yipyee said: Why run it if they can't afford it?? I'm not saying it's a condition of being in Super League, but I think it's expected. I'm off the opinion that a condition of Super League is that you must run an academy, if you can't afford too, then you shouldn't be in Super League in my opinion. 3
dkw Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 11 hours ago, LeytherRob said: Unfortunately, the context surrounding the report wasn’t entirely accurate and the Club were not contacted for comment. This is the bit thats unacceptable from the reporter, by all means print a story if you have it but to not try and corroborate it with the actual club is a bit out of order. At least give them the opportunity to discuss it with the reporter. 9
gingerjon Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 5 hours ago, The Future is League said: I'm not saying it's a condition of being in Super League, but I think it's expected. I'm off the opinion that a condition of Super League is that you must run an academy, if you can't afford too, then you shouldn't be in Super League in my opinion. It doesn't have to be an academy but there have to be pathways for development in place - and they have to meet minimum standards. Chopping the academy but putting in place 'pathways' is what London did last year. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)
gingerjon Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 11 hours ago, LeytherRob said: in which case I'd say the club has a duty to its shareholders to keep them informed and not let them find out in the press. Do we know that shareholders haven't been kept up to date? We do appear to have fallen for a bit of clickbait masquerading as detailed reporting again. 1 Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)
Archie Gordon Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 (edited) 7 minutes ago, gingerjon said: It doesn't have to be an academy but there have to be pathways for development in place - and they have to meet minimum standards. Chopping the academy but putting in place 'pathways' is what London did last year. Yes. For info, one costs £250-400k, the other £5-20k. You can imagine the difference in outputs. Ideally, clubs should be doing both. Edited November 22, 2024 by Archie Gordon 1 1
dboy Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 19 hours ago, LeytherRob said: Yep it has to be a subscription/membership scheme and there are 2 things I find a little concerning - firstly that we are currently well in the swing of season ticket launches and xmas merch drops which usually gives clubs operating a traditional upfront ST a good pot of cash to play with in the off season. This is a great point. If they are skint now, something is badly amiss.
sweaty craiq Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 16 minutes ago, dboy said: This is a great point. If they are skint now, something is badly amiss. They shouldn’t have better cash flow than Nov/Dec sponsors season tickets and merchandise all coming in. Salford cannot work unless fans and business’s make it work. This plea should have gone to them to plug this gap, unless they know it’s going to blow later bar another council miracle? 2
phiggins Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 There's so much about this case that I'm struggling to get my head around. How much of a loss are they operating at that means the money from previous share scheme, Dupree, Croft and Ackers fees are now long gone? Why can they not get sponsors until the new stadium deal is done? How will the stadium deal fix everything in one go? From the sounds of some Salford fans on X, it seems like they are expecting a deal that is so favourable from the council, even to the point where they will be 'given' the real estate for a huge billboard on the M60. If a tory council were to offer such a deal to Sale Sharks, we'd all be shouting corruption. I'm very doubtful that the new deal will do much more some modest cost reductions and modest revenue opportunities. 3
LeytherRob Posted November 22, 2024 Author Posted November 22, 2024 24 minutes ago, phiggins said: There's so much about this case that I'm struggling to get my head around. How much of a loss are they operating at that means the money from previous share scheme, Dupree, Croft and Ackers fees are now long gone? Why can they not get sponsors until the new stadium deal is done? How will the stadium deal fix everything in one go? From the sounds of some Salford fans on X, it seems like they are expecting a deal that is so favourable from the council, even to the point where they will be 'given' the real estate for a huge billboard on the M60. If a tory council were to offer such a deal to Sale Sharks, we'd all be shouting corruption. I'm very doubtful that the new deal will do much more some modest cost reductions and modest revenue opportunities. Agreed, and it’s more than a little frustrating as someone who pays my council tax to Salford council. I’d be interested to see what sums SRD have for this giant billboard. I’m presuming it will be digital which means a large purchase and installation fee, then it needs managing which means a company like 75media handling it and taking sizeable cut since they’ll be the ones having to find customers. I don’t see that making a massive difference to SRDs accounts since they’ve had about £750k in the past 12 months or so from the shares and player sales yet are still running a loss(the stories from Matt Shaw and others seem to allude to other loans being taken out even before this emergency meeting. All that is before even factoring the lack of rent paid and huge debts already owed to the council. is the club just expecting to keep running up bills on playoff squads and let the council act as the sugar daddy? Because local authorities are already stretched to breaking point and some of this money is going to have to start going back to the council to justify this stadium purchase.
Bull Mania Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 Some Salford fans on social media think this billboard will be the latest saviour of the club. Reckon it will bring in millions. Even if it does, it still takes time to get planning permission, install and negotiate contracts etc According to the article below salford will have used up 38% of their central distribution already if they get the early payment. 1
binosh Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 The other clubs have asked for time to go through Salfords proposal, the other clubs must be asking the same questions as posters on here, there are so many “then what” questions to that I fail to see how the other clubs can agree to it without Salford offloading players and cancelling the Elite academy. I also see on Facebook Salford fans claiming the shirt can’t be released as they have no main sponsor. Sadly I don’t see how an advance helps at all other than delaying the inevitable. 2
Whippet13 Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 2 minutes ago, binosh said: The other clubs have asked for time to go through Salfords proposal, the other clubs must be asking the same questions as posters on here, there are so many “then what” questions to that I fail to see how the other clubs can agree to it without Salford offloading players and cancelling the Elite academy. I also see on Facebook Salford fans claiming the shirt can’t be released as they have no main sponsor. Sadly I don’t see how an advance helps at all other than delaying the inevitable. Other way round, the clubs have asked Salford to provide more information: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/salford-red-devils-financial-update-30428451 1
Exiled Wiganer Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 (edited) 12 hours ago, Hopie said: Ruddy hell, a lot of posts hoping this is worse than it looks. Club rivalries should be about hoping other teams lose the match, not that the people working their lose their jobs. I don’t get that sense at all. What bothers me is that we have supposedly selected 12 teams for next season on an objective basis with finance supposedly a key criterion, only to find out weeks later that there are massive structural issues around Salford’s finances. So: - do they really need a handout to reach the starting line, in which case they are clearly in a terrible position cash wise? (Seemingly yes.) - were the criteria so c—p that it didn’t matter whether anyone is on the verge of insolvency? (Probably not, but IMG have no financial expertise so maybe.) - assuming that IMG’s financial criteria would assess a club’s finances, did IMG do its job? (It certainly doesn’t look like it, unless Salford were selective with the truth.) - what did Salford say to IMG? (See above. Though even here, anyone who knew anything about league - and I am not assuming the IMG person knows anything at all - would look at Salford’s historic finances, and lack of a backer and take a long hard look at them.) - when did Salford know what? (There is possibly a get out of jail card for both IMG and Salford, but given that this is a very long running saga, I would be astonished if they hadn’t the faintest notion.) Unless I missed it, you weren’t concerned about people at Toulouse losing out on Super League jobs. Because unless there are satisfactory answers to all of those questions, Toulouse should be in the 12. If I were a Super League boss, I would be very concerned indeed by the ramifications for the whole IMG edifice, and would be looking into the merits of a claim by Toulouse against SL (the RFL?) and/or IMG. They have nothing to(u) lo(u)se after all. Edited November 22, 2024 by Exiled Wiganer 2
binosh Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 Just now, Whippet13 said: Other way round, the clubs have asked Salford to provide more information: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/salford-red-devils-financial-update-30428451 Just seen that 1
phiggins Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 33 minutes ago, Bull Mania said: Some Salford fans on social media think this billboard will be the latest saviour of the club. Reckon it will bring in millions. Even if it does, it still takes time to get planning permission, install and negotiate contracts etc According to the article below salford will have used up 38% of their central distribution already if they get the early payment. It's incredible to think that the idea is that the council will spend millions on the stadium, and just give one of the tenants a space that will bring in millions in revenue, completely unrelated to the stadium itself. 24 minutes ago, Whippet13 said: Other way round, the clubs have asked Salford to provide more information: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/salford-red-devils-financial-update-30428451 "King explained that deals were done in view of the stadium deal being completed" at no point has the stadium deal been completed though. It was voted through by the council but that's a very different thing. I can't say I blame clubs for being sceptical about anything he says.
Derwent Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 58 minutes ago, LeytherRob said: I’d be interested to see what sums SRD have for this giant billboard. I’m presuming it will be digital which means a large purchase and installation fee, then it needs managing which means a company like 75media handling it and taking sizeable cut since they’ll be the ones having to find customers. I mean, do they still have the money for this digital billboard ? Looks like they borrowed the money to pay for it from a company called WeDo Finance back in July - there's a charge lodged at Companies House against a loan to pay for.... 1 2 I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally
LeytherRob Posted November 22, 2024 Author Posted November 22, 2024 32 minutes ago, Whippet13 said: Other way round, the clubs have asked Salford to provide more information: https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/salford-red-devils-financial-update-30428451 So as reported, Salford have received the following in the past 2 seasons £364,270 from the share scheme £215,440 in Loans since Dec 2022 from council £315,000 grant from the council March this year £300,000 from sale of Croft and Ackers (The transfer fee Leeds Rhinos have paid Salford Red Devils for Andy Ackers and Brodie Croft - Leeds Live) 6 figure fee for Dupree, £100,000 to be conservative. That's an additional £1,194,710 on top of their distribution, averaging at £597,355 per season of one off income that still sees them unable to pay bills. Where is the money going to come from to not only bridge that gap but also go further so that they can not only break even but earn enough to service the debts they do have? Especially when they are planning on spending over a third of their yearly distributions before the season even starts? 3
dboy Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 And they haven't paid their loans back, nor have they paid their full rent. Salford Council have to pay the shortfall for them on a monthly basis. They are virtually insolvent. 1
OriginalMrC Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 Some clubs have one off short term cash flow problems and should be helped through that. Other clubs consistently overspend and don't cut their cloth accordingly. Bailouts and handouts become part of their financial model. Clubs that cannot manage their finances professionally should not be in Super League. 2
yipyee Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 12 hours ago, The Future is League said: I'm not saying it's a condition of being in Super League, but I think it's expected. I'm off the opinion that a condition of Super League is that you must run an academy, if you can't afford too, then you shouldn't be in Super League in my opinion. This is where there's a lot of disagreement. One hand Clubs should be promoted on the field. Other hand, clubs can't afford to operate as a SL club but won the competition below.. So where we see clubs spending on the first team to get promoted it would appear that clubs are spending on box ticking to get promoted and reaching the same outcome.. insolvency
LeytherRob Posted November 22, 2024 Author Posted November 22, 2024 1 minute ago, yipyee said: This is where there's a lot of disagreement. One hand Clubs should be promoted on the field. Other hand, clubs can't afford to operate as a SL club but won the competition below.. So where we see clubs spending on the first team to get promoted it would appear that clubs are spending on box ticking to get promoted and reaching the same outcome.. insolvency I'd say that Salford aren't spending money on box ticking - if anything they'd be much better served doing so and spending more off the field on getting bums on seats rather with a few less stars rather than chasing a slim chance of trophies and bankrupting themselves. I mean, they already had 2 of the best quota centres in the comp in Lafai and Nene then went out and presumably outbid Huddersfield to take a third in Marsters too. It's needless recruitment from a tactical standpoint before you even get into the fact that the business can't keep itself afloat. 1
The Future is League Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 7 minutes ago, yipyee said: This is where there's a lot of disagreement. One hand Clubs should be promoted on the field. Other hand, clubs can't afford to operate as a SL club but won the competition below.. So where we see clubs spending on the first team to get promoted it would appear that clubs are spending on box ticking to get promoted and reaching the same outcome.. insolvency It's balancing act, but clubs need to do it. It they can't they shouldn't be in Super League
DG70 Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 I think what Salford have requested will be rejected and understandably so, it's like applying for a pay day loan without any assurances. 1
sweaty craiq Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 Its ###### easy to do some basic forecasts - Income (sky, gates, sponsors and other etc) Outgoings (squad, back room, coaches, playing/training costs, etc) Variance covered by ? If you cant cover you reduce cost, if you can cover plan how to increase income so you dont need to going forward. 1
sweaty craiq Posted November 22, 2024 Posted November 22, 2024 5 minutes ago, DG70 said: I think what Salford have requested will be rejected and understandably so, it's like applying for a pay day loan without any assurances. If granted PG's should be given to ensure season is completed and bills are paid
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now