Salford financial issues(again…)

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The make-up of the population is also very different. 

People up-root from other parts of the country (and indeed, other parts of the world) to move to cities for study and career. I'm currently sat on a bank of desks in an office in Leeds as the only Loiner in the room. Those people have their own team allegiances, or come from areas where RL isn't the dominant force in town. 

Nobody is up-rooting their life to move for a career opportunity in Featherstone. 

It's almost as if it's far more complicated than some say, and concluding Featherstone are doing great with 11% of their population and Leeds terribly with 1.7% of theirs is flawed!

We have a very simple measure of fanbase - bums on seats. I'm far more interested in metrics like this and income per customer etc. than vanity KPI's like percentage of population.

[Worzel]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

So on Salford. Having put out a statement saying that they will have to sell players without delay, they are now delaying hoping money comes in this week?

Yes, everything Salford has done for the last few years has been on the basis that "something is about to turn up, any minute now..." so I'm unsurprised that their operating model has been the same in the last month or so.

I really do hope a new investment deal comes off, but we have to draw a line somewhere. 

[Tommygilf]

23 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The make-up of the population is also very different. 

People up-root from other parts of the country (and indeed, other parts of the world) to move to cities for study and career. I'm currently sat on a bank of desks in an office in Leeds as the only Loiner in the room. Those people have their own team allegiances, or come from areas where RL isn't the dominant force in town. 

Nobody is up-rooting their life to move for a career opportunity in Featherstone. 

This I think is one of our main problems. RL in the UK just doesn't seem to have a population that is amongst the influencing, cultural exporters. It's perhaps the biggest underlying socio-economic problem we have that underpins everything else.

[M j M]

37 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Nobody is up-rooting their life to move for a career opportunity in Featherstone. 

Now that's obviously unnecessary hyperbole, if nothing else there are some seriously big multinationals with bases in Fev's industrial area to the west and I know some people who have relocated there because of that.

But yes by definition compared to a large university city it's a small number.

[Barley Mow]

39 minutes ago, DemonUK said:

...Maybe they are not australians, maybe its Sale Sharks

That was the rumour I saw last week.

[Dave T]

Interesting that King says this:

“We can sell to only four clubs – Castleford, Wakefield, Leigh and Hull, although that might change by this Wednesday following another RFL meeting,” King told League Express.

When Warrington have admitted that they have cap space and may be interested.

[Spidey]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Interesting that King says this:

“We can sell to only four clubs – Castleford, Wakefield, Leigh and Hull, although that might change by this Wednesday following another RFL meeting,” King told League Express.

When Warrington have admitted that they have cap space and may be interested.

Is it quota space he may be on about?

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

Is it quota space he may be on about?

Potentially, but the likes of Watkins and Sneyd aren't quota players.

[M j M]

Leeds may be able to accommodate Watkins with home-grown player exemptions and some shuffling about (anyone need a young half back with a big name on a year's non-returnable loan?)

[sweaty craiq]

39 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's almost as if it's far more complicated than some say, and concluding Featherstone are doing great with 11% of their population and Leeds terribly with 1.7% of theirs is flawed!

We have a very simple measure of fanbase - bums on seats. I'm far more interested in metrics like this and income per customer etc. than vanity KPI's like percentage of population.

MAGIC word POTENTIAL if we accept 12% is Brilliant then that means they have found their level.

Income per customer and top line revenue are pure vanity. Retained revenue is key to it all, do forget what pays bills. Juggling cash is great for a while or if you have a backer willing to absorb losses

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, sweaty craiq said:

MAGIC word POTENTIAL if we accept 12% is Brilliant then that means they have found their level.

Income per customer and top line revenue are pure vanity. Retained revenue is key to it all, do forget what pays bills. Juggling cash is great for a while or if you have a backer willing to absorb losses

TBH, little in this post makes much sense. I have no idea what point you are making when talking about juggling cash.

[The Future is League]

26 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Potentially, but the likes of Watkins and Sneyd aren't quota players.

Watkins best days are behind him, but could still do a decent job for some Super League clubs.

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

Yes, everything Salford has done for the last few years has been on the basis that "something is about to turn up, any minute now..." so I'm unsurprised that their operating model has been the same in the last month or so.

I really do hope a new investment deal comes off, but we have to draw a line somewhere. 

We have to hope that the investment comes off, the alternatives are bad for all involved in the sport. But the fact that conditions of the advance have seemingly been ignored, with no consequences is a failure of governance from the RFL, and something they need to look at. 

My worry is that if King is hopeful of ‘an offer’ tomorrow. That still seems some way off a takeover actually happening. 

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, Worzel said:

Yes, everything Salford has done for the last few years has been on the basis that "something is about to turn up, any minute now..." so I'm unsurprised that their operating model has been the same in the last month or so.

I really do hope a new investment deal comes off, but we have to draw a line somewhere. 

I hope it's a NRL club or people with a connection to try and put some life into the club. There must be some young people who given a chance and time in the area could be talented Rugby League players.

[Worzel]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

We have to hope that the investment comes off, the alternatives are bad for all involved in the sport. But the fact that conditions of the advance have seemingly been ignored, with no consequences is a failure of governance from the RFL, and something they need to look at. 

My worry is that if King is hopeful of ‘an offer’ tomorrow. That still seems some way off a takeover actually happening. 

Anything can go wrong in a deal process, even if we get good news on Tuesday.

At some point Salford need to structure their cost base in such a way that they can survive if it falls through. Frankly that point was passed in December when they received the advance, and action should have been taken then. If the deal is then closed, they can rebuild. If anything it might be helpful to the new investors to have a cleaner slate, the whole point of the grading model is that clubs should be taking longer-term decisions not be so obsessed with one year's league position. 

You can't run a business on hope. This is the story of Salford over the last few years I'm afraid, but there's a wider responsibility to the integrity of the competition and we should no longer allow them to do it. 

[Derwent]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

It's almost as if it's far more complicated than some say, and concluding Featherstone are doing great with 11% of their population and Leeds terribly with 1.7% of theirs is flawed!

We have a very simple measure of fanbase - bums on seats. I'm far more interested in metrics like this and income per customer etc. than vanity KPI's like percentage of population.

One of the issues is that different types of club have different catchment areas. Using the 2 clubs you have, I would think Fev's support probably comes from within a 10 mile radius of their stadium. Whereas you would think Leeds' support comes from a far wider radius, probably even 3 or 4 times the size of Fev's. In fact, Leeds' target catchment area probably even includes Featherstone !

So to a club based in a small community then % of population is a reasonable measure to use. Even better if they can break it down by demographics so they can target certain groups better.

But to a club like Leeds then % of the population of Leeds itself is meaningless as their target area is much bigger/wider than that.

All of which kind of begs the question why "catchment area" is an IMG metric in the first place.

[JohnM]

19 minutes ago, Derwent said:

One of the issues is that different types of club have different catchment areas. Using the 2 clubs you have, I would think Fev's support probably comes from within a 10 mile radius of their stadium. Whereas you would think Leeds' support comes from a far wider radius, probably even 3 or 4 times the size of Fev's. In fact, Leeds' target catchment area probably even includes Featherstone !

So to a club based in a small community then % of population is a reasonable measure to use. Even better if they can break it down by demographics so they can target certain groups better.

But to a club like Leeds then % of the population of Leeds itself is meaningless as their target area is much bigger/wider than that.

All of which kind of begs the question why "catchment area" is an IMG metric in the first place.

All of which kind of begs the question why "catchment area" is an IMG metric in the first place.

I think it could be:

1. The simplest metric that is better than none.

2. Building in higher-order demographic metrics such as population density in the outer areas of a wider "catchment area" . As the cathment area is expanded, the density of fans reduces, possibly?

3. That it borrows from analysis methodology IMG have carried out previously for other projects.

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, Derwent said:

One of the issues is that different types of club have different catchment areas. Using the 2 clubs you have, I would think Fev's support probably comes from within a 10 mile radius of their stadium. Whereas you would think Leeds' support comes from a far wider radius, probably even 3 or 4 times the size of Fev's. In fact, Leeds' target catchment area probably even includes Featherstone !

So to a club based in a small community then % of population is a reasonable measure to use. Even better if they can break it down by demographics so they can target certain groups better.

But to a club like Leeds then % of the population of Leeds itself is meaningless as their target area is much bigger/wider than that.

All of which kind of begs the question why "catchment area" is an IMG metric in the first place.

Catchment area is reasonable imo(not saying that the actual methodology is sound that IMG have used), but bigger population centres will suggest higher potential for bigger support. 

The only context that the % of population stat is currently used is to justify that some small clubs are doing well. 

[Bull Mania]

47 minutes ago, phiggins said:

We have to hope that the investment comes off, the alternatives are bad for all involved in the sport. But the fact that conditions of the advance have seemingly been ignored, with no consequences is a failure of governance from the RFL, and something they need to look at. 

My worry is that if King is hopeful of ‘an offer’ tomorrow. That still seems some way off a takeover actually happening. 

I wonder if they silence they've allegedly answered bids with, is to try get to the meeting on Wednesday, overturn the exemption decision and get a bidding war going, rather than trying to get the takeover done in the next couple of days. If you're desperate to offload a player and only a couple of clubs can sign him, it significantly reduces your bargaining position.

I'm sure they're desperate to get a takeover done  but it's a lot more complicated and drawn out than selling a player and Salford need cash now. 

[The Future is League]

1 hour ago, phiggins said:

We have to hope that the investment comes off, the alternatives are bad for all involved in the sport. But the fact that conditions of the advance have seemingly been ignored, with no consequences is a failure of governance from the RFL, and something they need to look at. 

My worry is that if King is hopeful of ‘an offer’ tomorrow. That still seems some way off a takeover actually happening. 

Offer doesn't mean deal.

Would the Red Devils take any offer?

[binosh]

36 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

I wonder if they silence they've allegedly answered bids with, is to try get to the meeting on Wednesday, overturn the exemption decision and get a bidding war going, rather than trying to get the takeover done in the next couple of days. If you're desperate to offload a player and only a couple of clubs can sign him, it significantly reduces your bargaining position.

I'm sure they're desperate to get a takeover done  but it's a lot more complicated and drawn out than selling a player and Salford need cash now. 

This is exactly what they are doing.

[The Future is League]

39 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

I wonder if they silence they've allegedly answered bids with, is to try get to the meeting on Wednesday, overturn the exemption decision and get a bidding war going, rather than trying to get the takeover done in the next couple of days. If you're desperate to offload a player and only a couple of clubs can sign him, it significantly reduces your bargaining position.

I'm sure they're desperate to get a takeover done  but it's a lot more complicated and drawn out than selling a player and Salford need cash now. 

Any Due Diligence done might reveal more about the club and it's financial position than we have been told so far.

[Worzel]

39 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

I wonder if they silence they've allegedly answered bids with, is to try get to the meeting on Wednesday, overturn the exemption decision and get a bidding war going, rather than trying to get the takeover done in the next couple of days. If you're desperate to offload a player and only a couple of clubs can sign him, it significantly reduces your bargaining position.

I'm sure they're desperate to get a takeover done  but it's a lot more complicated and drawn out than selling a player and Salford need cash now. 

Yes, I think you're right. In one sense it's rational, in another sense it's a bad faith approach with partners who've previously been given the option to create cap exemptions and chosen not to. To turn up the heat on the crisis by letting my time elapse, in order to leverage a different outcome, isn't exactly team-spirited eh... given if push came to shove the rest of the league could tell them to stuff it (but damaging themselves in the process)

Salford got themselves into this mess, so playing games with clubs who didn't isn't exactly cricket is it?

[JonM]

3 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

People up-root from other parts of the country (and indeed, other parts of the world) to move to cities for study and career. I'm currently sat on a bank of desks in an office in Leeds as the only Loiner in the room. Those people have their own team allegiances, or come from areas where RL isn't the dominant force in town. 

It's also the case that we don't do a very good job either of promoting the sport to people moving into the area, or of ensuring that all those kids who played and/or watched RL who then go to uni and/or take a job elsewhere stay with the sport.

This is why, for example, Warrington haven't been able to fully capitalize on the growth and economic success of the town relative to say St. Helens or Wigan. Or why so much of Salford's support is people who grew up (or their parents did) in a handful of housing estates in Weaste, Seedley, Eccles etc.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, JonM said:

It's also the case that we don't do a very good job either of promoting the sport to people moving into the area, or of ensuring that all those kids who played and/or watched RL who then go to uni and/or take a job elsewhere stay with the sport.

This is why, for example, Warrington haven't been able to fully capitalize on the growth and economic success of the town relative to say St. Helens or Wigan. Or why so much of Salford's support is people who grew up (or their parents did) in a handful of housing estates in Weaste, Seedley, Eccles etc.

I'm not sure I agree that Warringotn haven't been able to capitalise in the same way Saints or Wigan have. What demonstrates that they have done better than Warrington in this space?

I'll be honest, I haven't really seen any club grow attendances that correlate with the population growth in their town. Wigan this year averaged the same as they did 30 years ago, Saints drove substantial attendance growth on the back of the new ground, just like Wire did. 

Wire have certainly done well in the sponsorship space, so nothing suggests this under-performance that people talk about. 

I will repeat my previous point that I think all clubs can be doing better and have huge untapped potential, but I don't see Wire as a special case in this in the slightest.