Salford financial issues(again…)

[Taffy Tiger]

3 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The IMG scoring is based on subjective criteria with subjective weighting and subjective boundaries within the criteria.

It is a failure of the scoring that Salford scored enough despite being months from administration/liquidation. IMG is just a scoring system, it should not replace common sense. Without finance to run the club, the rest of the criteria are meaningless. 

If a club has no money then how on earth can it retain a place in SL?

Maybe include a score for "do you have funding in place to run a competitive team in SL next season" and if the answer is No you lose 5 points.

Whilst I understand your view , I see it from a different point of view .

I think that IMG has served it's purpose with Salford and highlighted a problem that may have gone undetected for years to come under the old system , only coming to light when it was too late .

The IMG system has meant that Salford have had to come in for early payments on two separate occasions , resulting in the RFL imposing heavy restrictions on Salford due to their financial situation . To suggest that this wasn't highlighted on the IMG scoring system seems a little unfair imo, as you can clearly see that they have scored less than 50% of their maximum finance score , and without seeing every SL team's finance grading , I think it would be fair to assume that they will be the lowest scoring SL team in this area . 

These restrictions meant that they would ultimately need to reduce their overheads by £800k , and operate on a much smaller salary cap of £1.2 M .

Ironically , this has now paved the way for possible investment in the club , something that would probably not have happened under the old system , or at least not until it was too late and Salford had been forced into administration or even luquidation , neither of which would have been good for SL or RFL . 

With the new IMG criteria there is a much clearer pathway , for any potential new owners to see , in order to maintain/achieve SL status in the future , which I believe has helped Salford in securing new investment (presuming it does come to fruition)

My own views are that this wouldn't have happened under the old system .

 

Edited January 24 by Taffy Tiger

[Barley Mow]

2 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Whilst I understand your view , I see it from a different point of view .

I think that IMG has served it's purpose with Salford and highlighted a problem that may have gone undetected for years to come under the old system , only coming to light when it was too late .

The IMG system has meant that Salford have had to come in for early payments on two separate occasions , resulting in the RFL imposing heavy restrictions on Salford due to their financial situation . To suggest that this wasn't highlighted on the IMG scoring system seems a little unfair imo, as you can clearly see that they have scored less than 50% of their maximum finance score , and without seeing every SL teams finance grading , I think it would be fair to assume that they will be the lowest scoring SL team in this area . 

These restrictions meant that they would ultimately need to reduce their overheads by £800k , and operate on a much smaller salary cap of £1.2 M .

Ironically , this has now paved the way for possible investment in the club , something that would probably not have happened under the old system , or at least not until it was too late and Salford had been forced into administration or even luquidation , neither of which would have been good for SL or RFL . 

With the new IMG criteria there is a much clearer pathway , for any potential new owners to see , in order to maintain/achieve SL status in the future , which I believe has helped Salford in securing new investment (presuming it does come to fruition)

My own views are that this wouldn't have happened under the old system .

 

Why wouldn't it happen under the old system?

Without grading/IMG Salford would still have run out of money, asked for an advance, etc.

[Taffy Tiger]

15 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Why wouldn't it happen under the old system?

Without grading/IMG Salford would still have run out of money, asked for an advance, etc.

But would they , they have only asked for an advance in the two years that IMG (provisional and actual) gradings have been announced and highlighted their issues to the whole of RL . 

Would they have still run out of money ? As you say , yes , probably (eventually) , however at that point it may have  been too late and they would have gone into administration and then perhaps liquidation .

My view is that under this current system they have asked for help earlier and as a result this may have benefited them going forward .

Of course , we will never know if that is the case now , and is just my way of looking at things . Doesn't mean I'm right though 

Edited January 24 by Taffy Tiger

[Barley Mow]

15 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

But would they , they have only asked for an advance in the two years that IMG (provisional and actual) gradings have been announced and highlighted their issues to the whole of RL . 

Would they have still run out of money ? As you say , yes , probably (eventually) , however at that point it mayd have  been too late and they would have gone into administration and then perhaps liquidation .

My view is that under this current system they have asked for help earlier and as a result this may have benefited them going forward .

Of course , we will never know if that is the case now , and is just my way of looking at things . Doesn't mean I'm right though 

No, I don't think you are right.

Based on the information we have, they couldn't meet their outgoings without an advance and had no other funding available.

They don't seem to have asked for that advance early because it was advantageous under a grading system, but because without it they couldn't operate. That would be the same without grading - you can't operate without funding no matter what the system.

Edited January 24 by Barley Mow

[Taffy Tiger]

13 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

No, I don't think you are right.

Based on the information we have, they couldn't meet their outgoings without an advance and had no other funding available.

They don't seem to have asked for that advance early because it was advantageous under a grading system, but because without it they couldn't operate. That would be the same without grading.

You may be right , but my point is that without the IMG grading criteria would they have had to spend so much in the first place . They would have only needed a salary cap big enough to finish off the bottom of the table , and in the last few years that could have been achieved at a much lower cost than they have had to pay .

With the introduction of the IMG system , it became clear to Salford that they would have to achieve much more than 11th place to maintain SL status and indeed the only way they could do that would be to over achieve on the pitch , which came at a cost . Now whether they should have taken that risk is a completely different matter ,and I think we would be in agreement in saying no they shouldn't have , but they chose to go down the route of SL survival at all costs . In their defence I don't think they are the first to adopt this policy , nor will they be the last . 

 

 

Edited January 24 by Taffy Tiger

[Barley Mow]

3 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

You may be right , but my point is that without the IMG grading criteria would they have had to spend so much in the first place . They would have only needed a salary cap big enough to finish off the bottom of the table , and in the last few years that could have been achieved at a much lower cost than they have had to pay .

With the introduction of the IMG system , it became clear to Salford that they would have to achieve much more than 11th place to maintain SL status and indeed the only way they could do that would be to over achieve on the pitch , which came at a cost . Now whether they should have taken that risk is a completely different matter ,and I think we would be in agreement in saying no they shouldn't have , but they chose to go down the route of SL survival at all costs . In their defence I don't think they are the first to adopt this policy , nor will they be the last . 

 

 

Salford have operated in a system where they only needed to finish 11th to retain SL status for many years - despite that, the approach they've taken is to pay for a squad capable of challenging for a play-off place (although as stated by others, still less expensive than many of their competitors).

It is because they have done that while not generating the income to sustain it that they have ended where they are - with or without grading, they have been spending more than they generate.

Beyond that, I don't recall anything suggesting that they have begun spending more as grading came in.

[Jill Halfpenny fan]

How much central funding do Salford receive because looking at their IMG turnover percentages if I'm doing the maths right they are not raking it in. Think I'm right in thinking this year's financials are based on 2021, 22 and 23 and there was still an element of Covid about then but even so.

[Taffy Tiger]

2 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

Salford have operated in a system where they only needed to finish 11th to retain SL status for many years - despite that, the approach they've taken is to pay for a squad capable of challenging for a play-off place (although as stated by others, still less expensive than many of their competitors).

It is because they have done that while not generating the income to sustain it that they have ended where they are - with or without grading, they have been spending more than they generate.

Beyond that, I don't recall anything suggesting that they have begun spending more as grading came in.

Again , I can see your point , but would they have still asked for money under the old system ? We will never know .  

I agree it's all hypothetical now , but the only thing that we know for sure is that they never asked for any up front payment under the old system , and yet they have asked for 2 in the first 2 years of the IMG system . 

Now I do accept that it will be some historical debt that accounts for their financial situation now , but at the end of the day we will never know if , under the old system , they would have asked for an up front payment or not . We only know that they didn't ask for anything until the new IMG system came into play . Maybe that is just coincidence who knows ?

 

[Barley Mow]

4 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Again , I can see your point , but would they have still asked for money under the old system ? We will never know .  

I agree it's all hypothetical now , but the only thing that we know for sure is that they never asked for any up front payment under the old system , and yet they have asked for 2 in the first 2 years of the IMG system . 

Now I do accept that it will be some historical debt that accounts for their financial situation now , but at the end of the day we will never know if , under the old system , they would have asked for an up front payment or not . We only know that they didn't ask for anything until the new IMG system came into play . Maybe that is just coincidence who knows ?

 

I suspect it is coincidence - if they hadn't asked for money (under either system), they would've gone bust.

[M j M]

6 minutes ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Again , I can see your point , but would they have still asked for money under the old system ? We will never know .  

I agree it's all hypothetical now , but the only thing that we know for sure is that they never asked for any up front payment under the old system , and yet they have asked for 2 in the first 2 years of the IMG system . 

Now I do accept that it will be some historical debt that accounts for their financial situation now , but at the end of the day we will never know if , under the old system , they would have asked for an up front payment or not . We only know that they didn't ask for anything until the new IMG system came into play . Maybe that is just coincidence who knows ?

 

What income streams do you think would be higher, or expenditure lower, without the "IMG system"?

[Taffy Tiger]

1 hour ago, M j M said:

What income streams do you think would be higher, or expenditure lower, without the "IMG system"?

Potentially historical salaries and maybe even the stadium . 

The need to finish much higher than 11th under the IMG system will have led to a higher salary cap than required . I take on board that they may have been one of the smaller spenders in this area , but not that much less than salary cap and they could have maintained SL status under the old system with further savings in this area.

The stadium has proven to be a millstone around their neck up to now . They have generated no income on match days and it's been a bit of a money pit for them (although they have had council help). The problem they have is that they can't move from the AJ Bell now as the new IMG gradings mean they have to have minimum stadium requirements to stay in SL . As an example , without the new stadium criteria , they could move to a much smaller stadium (maybe peninsula stadium) and cut costs that way . This isn't possible under IMG as Peninsula Stadium doesn't meet the minimum requirements for SL . 

 

Just to mention at this point that I am in favour of IMG system , it just hasn't helped Salford up until now . However , ironically ,  it could prove to be the thing that saves them going forward as I don't think they would have had any interest from investors under the old system , although I accept that there is no way of knowing this , it's just my opinion.

Edited January 24 by Taffy Tiger

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Dullish Mood said:

Been watching Wire since the mid 80s and wouldn’t necessarily agree there mate.  Sure we had some massive games there against Wigan, Widnes, Saints etc.  The majority of games had 4-5 k on and don’t forget it was essentially a 3 sided ground with only about 200 people on the snookers side?

Interestingly, that 1994 match that is referred to was indeed a classic (1st v 2nd in the league) with 11.4k in. When you look at the rest of the fixtures that year we had less than 4k versus Leigh, a couple with <5k in (Salford and Hull KR), and even our last league game which saw us finish our fixtures at the top of the table had only 6k in versus Sheffield. And this was a peak season for us where we were blessed to see the likes of Davies, Bateman, Shelford, Ellis, Mackey plus the introduction of Harris.

One thing that is often overlooked too is the trend of changing ends at half time. It meant that basically many games had a weird atmosphere where fans were split across a half full Fletcher end and the others spread across the Railway end. 

Of course there were outstanding events that live long in our memory, but that's exactly the same at the HJ. I'd argue that our lesser games at 8-10k now are far better than our 3-4k games at Wilderspool.

[Wakefield Ram]

16 hours ago, Taffy Tiger said:

Whilst I understand your view , I see it from a different point of view .

I think that IMG has served it's purpose with Salford and highlighted a problem that may have gone undetected for years to come under the old system , only coming to light when it was too late .

The IMG system has meant that Salford have had to come in for early payments on two separate occasions , resulting in the RFL imposing heavy restrictions on Salford due to their financial situation . To suggest that this wasn't highlighted on the IMG scoring system seems a little unfair imo, as you can clearly see that they have scored less than 50% of their maximum finance score , and without seeing every SL team's finance grading , I think it would be fair to assume that they will be the lowest scoring SL team in this area . 

These restrictions meant that they would ultimately need to reduce their overheads by £800k , and operate on a much smaller salary cap of £1.2 M .

Ironically , this has now paved the way for possible investment in the club , something that would probably not have happened under the old system , or at least not until it was too late and Salford had been forced into administration or even luquidation , neither of which would have been good for SL or RFL . 

With the new IMG criteria there is a much clearer pathway , for any potential new owners to see , in order to maintain/achieve SL status in the future , which I believe has helped Salford in securing new investment (presuming it does come to fruition)

My own views are that this wouldn't have happened under the old system .

 

The question is how does a club on the verge of administration/ liquidation score 50% on financials? 

[Forever Trinity]

Not seen any updates on the proposed takeover I thought it was to be agreed by yesterday unless I have misunderstood the timelines

[bobbruce]

On 23/01/2025 at 07:50, The 4 of Us said:

This bloke once “placed a bid” for Man Utd. Look how that worked out! 

Wasn’t the offer that was accepted about £20m I bet he wished he’d been able to get that money together somehow. What are a poor performing Utd in an aging stadium worth now £2b?.  

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The question is how does a club on the verge of administration/ liquidation score 50% on financials? 

Well firstly they don't as they scored less than 50%, and they scored 0 for their balance sheet.

Finance (max score 4.5): – 2.15

 

 

Non-centralised turnover £: 1.50 / 2.25
Non-centralised turnover %: 0.15 / 0.75
Adjusted profit: 0.25 / 0.5
Owner investment: 0.25 / 0.5
Balance sheet strength: 0.00 / 0.5

[Wakefield Ram]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well firstly they don't as they scored less than 50%, and they scored 0 for their balance sheet.

Finance (max score 4.5): – 2.15

 

 

Non-centralised turnover £: 1.50 / 2.25
Non-centralised turnover %: 0.15 / 0.75
Adjusted profit: 0.25 / 0.5
Owner investment: 0.25 / 0.5
Balance sheet strength: 0.00 / 0.5

How can they score any points for financials when they are on the verge of administration/ liquidation?

[Bull Mania]

17 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Well firstly they don't as they scored less than 50%, and they scored 0 for their balance sheet.

Finance (max score 4.5): – 2.15

 

 

Non-centralised turnover £: 1.50 / 2.25
Non-centralised turnover %: 0.15 / 0.75
Adjusted profit: 0.25 / 0.5
Owner investment: 0.25 / 0.5
Balance sheet strength: 0.00 / 0.5

Owner investment is an interesting one. I presume that's from the "shares" that were sold. 

[The 4 of Us]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

Wasn’t the offer that was accepted about £20m I bet he wished he’d been able to get that money together somehow. What are a poor performing Utd in an aging stadium worth now £2b?.  

Absolutely. Lesson to us all about beating down a deal too much instead of looking to the future. Like me buying a new home recently. Lucky enough to get first dips at a property before it went to market. Cost us not a huge amount more for it not going to market. Since been told at least half a dozen times that x person would have been interested. Speculate to accumulate and all that. A lesson perhaps more of our club owners should learn, instead of basing efforts on paying last weeks bills. 

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

How can they score any points for financials when they are on the verge of administration/ liquidation?

I mean it is literally broken down there for you how I don't know how much more you want it breaking down? 

[Tommygilf]

56 minutes ago, Bull Mania said:

Owner investment is an interesting one. I presume that's from the "shares" that were sold. 

Yeah, in fairness they raised hundreds of thousands of pounds which isn't to be sniffed at.

[Taffy Tiger]

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

How can they score any points for financials when they are on the verge of administration/ liquidation?

I think it's just down to the anomoly of when an individual club's financial year ends . 

Cas's ended in Nov 2023 , so they are almost a year out of date when the final assessment is done .

With Salford's finances seemingly spiralling , the accounts submitted (which were the latest available , so the ones they are assessed on) may not reflect the true position when the final score was done . Without investement I would imagine we would see a drop in their finance score at the end of 2025 to reflect this .

[Trojan Horse]

2 hours ago, Forever Trinity said:

Not seen any updates on the proposed takeover I thought it was to be agreed by yesterday unless I have misunderstood the timelines

You mean the articles that said ‘should’ and ‘could’. 
 

Take it with a pinch of salt. 

[Exiled Wiganer]

3 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

How can they score any points for financials when they are on the verge of administration/ liquidation?

Indeed. My main issues (setting to one side who should have been asked to carry it out) with the evaluation process in this case is not that an evaluation process of some sort is not a good thing - I agree with TT and believe it is, but that the outcome here shows either Salford weren’t honest, it was designed incorrectly or it was applied incorrectly. That someone unable to afford a full time team can get any financial points at all, and ends up being on the right side of a line with Toulouse on the other side will lead us to a devalued competition when we are in a race against time to drive up standards. You could not make up that level of strategic stupidity. 

[-Trinity-]

Worth a watch, for a bloke talking into a lipstick!

 

Edited January 25 by -Trinity-