Salford financial issues(again…)

[dkw]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

What have they done to be punished for yet? I agree that none of this is a good look and Salford have sailed close to the wind more times than I can remember. However if they do get took over and sort themselves out financially what rules breaches have they made?

Punishment is probably the wrong word, I don't think many fans with to see them hammered. But fans of clubs who have had to work within financial constraints and within their means could be disappointed should Salford come out clean at the end of this.

[Charlie]

5 minutes ago, dkw said:

Punishment is probably the wrong word, I don't think many fans with to see them hammered. But fans of clubs who have had to work within financial constraints and within their means could be disappointed should Salford come out clean at the end of this.

That’s the gamble of life though isn’t it

[Damien]

16 minutes ago, Charlie said:

That’s the gamble of life though isn’t it

And Salford over the last decade have had more lives than a cat!

[Dullish Mood]

100 pages here we come…..

[Charlie]

18 minutes ago, Damien said:

And Salford over the last decade have had more lives than a cat!

There still here (for now) so it’s played off 

[The Masked Poster]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Yeah. It's frustration for me. 18 months of a very slow car crash where everyone with any agency has just shrugged. 

I also think a lot of double standards are at play too. Can you imagine if this was a rugby union club being bailed out by a cash strapped council? I doubt very much whether the laissez faire attitude shown would be so prevalent. 

But if people are ok with it, as long as it turns out well in the end, then there is not much else to say. 

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Charlie said:

There still here (for now) so it’s played off 

I suppose that depends on your definition of paying off. It's seen them go cap in hand to the council, fans and any investor they can find. It's seen them not meet the terms of a CVA, costing creditors to the clubs, which also saw them docked points. Its also seen them as bit time players in the stadium they play in with Sale much bigger players.

The fact they are still here at all is only because of a massive degree of good fortune and benevolence. That's great but it's not paying off or they wouldn't be in this boat again. All it has done is seen them lurch from one imminent disaster to another.

Edited January 29 by Damien

[The Masked Poster]

49 minutes ago, dkw said:

Punishment is probably the wrong word, I don't think many fans with to see them hammered. But fans of clubs who have had to work within financial constraints and within their means could be disappointed should Salford come out clean at the end of this.

Exactly. People arguing that they've not broken the law are ignoring the effect that this affair will have on other clubs and their attitudes towards the wider game. Why should they play fair and be hamstrung when they can just sign players they can't really afford and then hold the governing body to ransom by alluding to the "what you gonna do, Throw us out?" angle. 

[The Masked Poster]

54 minutes ago, Charlie said:

That’s the gamble of life though isn’t it

It's definitely not.

That sort of thinking is what leads to record numbers of people who are in crippling debt or taking loans and mortgages they can't really afford because they think it will magically be ok. But it very, very, very rarely is. 

[JohnM]

35 minutes ago, Dullish Mood said:

100 pages here we come…..

.

I've set things up so I get reminders every five minutes 24/7 to look at this thread, the Broncos thread, the Huddersfield thread, the Toulouse thread, and now the Featherstone accounts mega-scandal thread to see if anything has changed within the 5 minute period.

[Damien]

12 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Exactly. People arguing that they've not broken the law are ignoring the effect that this affair will have on other clubs and their attitudes towards the wider game. Why should they play fair and be hamstrung when they can just sign players they can't really afford and then hold the governing body to ransom by alluding to the "what you gonna do, Throw us out?" angle. 

People weren't arguing they've not broken the law though. They were asking what rules have they broken to be punished for, do you know? I don't, hence asking.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

People weren't arguing they've not broken the law though. They were asking what rules have they broken to be punished for, do you know? I don't, hence asking.

The special measures twice and asking for an advancement has caused the RFL to implement a sustainability cap on them - which surely can be seen as a result of (or punishment for) a breach of the financial rules.

[OriginalMrC]

This is definitely the least interesting thread on the whole forum. It's going to go stratospheric when anything actually happens

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

I've not seen any anger in this thread, just some odd people claiming anyone daring to question the situation is angry for some reason, very weird.

Also I dont see many happy to see Salford go under, one or 2 aobivously have some kind of grudge are reveling in it but the vast majority seem to want to see Salford get this sorted, albeit it there has to be some kind of "punishment" at the end of this.

Your opinion is valid, but nobody is challenging people questioning the situation. That just isn't happening, nobody is trying to quash debate, just some people don't like their complaints being challenged.

I used the word angry, and while a couple for you don't believe this is the case, a few people agreed with the post and one poster replied why they believe there is anger.

It's hardly an outlandish claim that people who are demanding punishment are angry.

[The Masked Poster]

1 minute ago, OriginalMrC said:

This is definitely the least interesting thread on the whole forum. It's going to go stratospheric when anything actually happens

Then feel free to not read it? 

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I also think a lot of double standards are at play too. Can you imagine if this was a rugby union club being bailed out by a cash strapped council? I doubt very much whether the laissez faire attitude shown would be so prevalent. 

But if people are ok with it, as long as it turns out well in the end, then there is not much else to say. 

You really are ignoring the fact that councils have supported RL clubs (and indeed RU clubs) for decades, probably longer.

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The special measures twice and asking for an advancement has caused the RFL to implement a sustainability cap on them - which surely can be seen as a result of (or punishment for) a breach of the financial rules.

We were talking about after all this is sorted and Salford hopefully come through this okay. As you say they are already being punished for what we see. If Salford get an investor and pumps in millions, clears whatever, what would the additional punishment be and why?

If what you say is the basis of any additional punishment and has grounds in the rules that's fine. If the IMG criteria is tightened on the back of this then that's good too. I honestly don't know. I am though wary of the lets just get the pitchforks out and punish Salford further for just because reasons.

 

[The Masked Poster]

Just now, Dave T said:

You really are ignoring the fact that councils have supported RL clubs (and indeed RU clubs) for decades, probably longer.

Not to the extent of a club actually *relying* on the council to bail them out as part of their financial planning. That's very different from a council helping out an organisation that many of their residents use and take enjoyment from. 

I get that you don't see this as a particularly big issue but it strikes me as pretty irresponsible and tbh, not a little immoral. 

[LeytherRob]

5 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Then feel free to not read it? 

I have never, and will never understand the inability of some people on the internet to just pass by something they don’t like without announcing it to the world.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

You really are ignoring the fact that councils have supported RL clubs (and indeed RU clubs) for decades, probably longer.

They have, but this level of support, for so long, does seem exceptional in nature.

Especially when Salford have had everything else like the CVA.

[Dave T]

16 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

It's definitely not.

That sort of thinking is what leads to record numbers of people who are in crippling debt or taking loans and mortgages they can't really afford because they think it will magically be ok. But it very, very, very rarely is. 

Where I have some sympathy with Salford is that I don't believe it is just a straightforward case of stupid business plans that could never materialise (which is probably a feature in many of these cases).

The losses are relatively modest for a sports club, but without it looking like excuses, there have been signs that improvements are on the way. Let's be honest, the new Stadium was a disappointment for Salford, and they haven't kicked on like many other clubs have done with improved facilities, but it was perfectly reasonable to expect a sizeable uplift in crowds.

Then they had a new rich owner who turned out to be crazy.

Then for the last couple of years they have had negotiations on stadium deals - now we have to take some of it with a pinch of salt, as their word has hardly been reliable (and tbh the whole "we couldn't get hold of the council over Christmas' just smacks of small time incompetence!) - but it does feel reasonable that there is opportunity for increased revenue streams with the new stadium deal.

They have been trying to make things happen - and still are - I'm ok with that. 

[The Masked Poster]

1 minute ago, LeytherRob said:

I have never, and will never understand the inability of some people on the internet to just pass by something they don’t like without announcing it to the world.

We see this constantly on things like facebook. Someone puts a post about a tv show and people will interject with things like "I hate that show, it's rubbish blah blah". Usually unsolicited comments too, just scroll on. 

[ricky]

3 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

I have never, and will never understand the inability of some people on the internet to just pass by something they don’t like without announcing it to the world.

You're not doing so well at passing by silently neither....

[RP London]

30 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Exactly. People arguing that they've not broken the law are ignoring the effect that this affair will have on other clubs and their attitudes towards the wider game. Why should they play fair and be hamstrung when they can just sign players they can't really afford and then hold the governing body to ransom by alluding to the "what you gonna do, Throw us out?" angle. 

I'm not entirely sure that is what people are saying at all, it certainly isnt my stance. What is being said, from what I see, is "we are where we are", how do we fix the situation we are in right now. I think most people have said that we would like some "punishment" at the end (not sure how or what, lets see what happens and what actually gets broken or not when this is done and dusted). There should absolutely be a deterrent, however, what is it exactly that will stop a club spending beyond its means? as you say in another thread this happens in many many companies and personally, the biggest deterrent is "we'll let you go bust" but as has been pointed out before that damages suppliers and other business associated with them directors etc just walk away. Its something we and many other sports have never really got to grips with as its very very difficult to do.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Not to the extent of a club actually *relying* on the council to bail them out as part of their financial planning. That's very different from a council helping out an organisation that many of their residents use and take enjoyment from. 

I get that you don't see this as a particularly big issue but it strikes me as pretty irresponsible and tbh, not a little immoral. 

 

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

They have, but this level of support, for so long, does seem exceptional in nature.

Especially when Salford have had everything else like the CVA.

Maybe I'd change my mind if numbers were presented, but tbh, these vague claims of council support don't really tell me much.

I do recall at the turn of the century, my club Wire needed an awful lot of support from WBC. And haven't we just seen millions of quid of support to Wakey/Cas/Fev?

Sports clubs do an awful lot for their communities, including civic pride, of course it's right to question business practices and I do agree on the point about things being immoral to an extent, but I am comfortable with councils helping clubs where needed. I think it's for their council and their taxpayers to use democracy to deal with that.