Salford financial issues(again…)

[The Masked Poster]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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. 

All that is pretty reasonable on the face of it and probably true. And if it had been sorted by last week or Salford had actually sold players (or at least made a start) then I wouldn't be debating about this with you now. 
But it seems like we will still be none the wiser this time next week.

And effectively told to mind our own business if we ask what's exactly going on. 

[Chronicler of Chiswick]

20 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

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

Nah - everyone would go off in a huff because they couldn't mindlessly speculate any longer.

[The Masked Poster]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

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.

Ok then. If I thought Salford were busting a gut to sort the issue out, indeed had been doing so for the past couple of years or so, then I'd tend to agree with you. But I think we're past the point of taking the pee now and they know that if they can somehow scrape through they can metaphorically flash their ###### at the game and say "well, we survived". 

[dboy]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

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

 

Revealed: Salford council owed nearly £2m after stepping in to save city's rugby clubs - Manchester Evening News

"Salford Red Devils, meanwhile, have received three different payments in the past two years - a loan worth £40,440 in December 2022, a £175,000 loan in February 2023, and a £315,000 grant in March 2024.

The rugby league club also has a historical debt of £1.5m which was transferred in 2013 from Salford Football Club (1914) Ltd.

Coun Robin Garrido, leader of Salford Conservatives, claimed the expected losses after buying the stadium have not been made public and are kept in a confidential report about the purchase."

This was Oct 2024 - more support has been given since then.

None of the payments made by the council have been repaid.

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

Ok then. If I thought Salford were busting a gut to sort the issue out, indeed had been doing so for the past couple of years or so, then I'd tend to agree with you. But I think we're past the point of taking the pee now and they know that if they can somehow scrape through they can metaphorically flash their ###### at the game and say "well, we survived". 

are you reading people's posts?

this is pretty much an either or situation right now. Either we try and get Salford through this or we let them go bust and kick them out of the league. So number 1 priority at the moment, chosen by the RFL, is to try and get them through it.

NO ONE is saying they will then get off scott free and flash their nethers at anyone.. However, you cannot determine any "punishment" until you know what "crime" they have actually committed. So we need to get to that point where we can see what they actually do/have done when they get to the other side to then determine any "punishment".. which will then be the deterrent. 

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

All that is pretty reasonable on the face of it and probably true. And if it had been sorted by last week or Salford had actually sold players (or at least made a start) then I wouldn't be debating about this with you now. 
But it seems like we will still be none the wiser this time next week.

And effectively told to mind our own business if we ask what's exactly going on. 

I do challenge that though in that they may not need to sell players. That may not be the solution. I expect it is a balancing act here and they may need to move very quickly if any takeover/investment gets delayed further or falls away, but selling players isn't the only option on the table. It's why I don't understand the cynicism about whether there is even an investor - if there wasn't one, I see no reason for King to not sell players and try and secure survival. It's the actions of somebody who is working towards investment.

I would also add that people are calling the RFL incompetent and/or toothless, when in reality, maybe they know exactly what is happening. Don't you find it strange that they aren't getting stick from clubs for not selling? Or the governing body are not being firmer? It suggests that there is hope of something else behind the scenes.

And the only people basically being told to mind their own business are those demanding to know the potential investors. That isn't any of their business and it is entirely reasonable if an investor wants confidentiality. Nosey people like us on a forum don't get to demand to know everything (at least not without being told to 'b*gger off'!)

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, dboy said:

 

Revealed: Salford council owed nearly £2m after stepping in to save city's rugby clubs - Manchester Evening News

"Salford Red Devils, meanwhile, have received three different payments in the past two years - a loan worth £40,440 in December 2022, a £175,000 loan in February 2023, and a £315,000 grant in March 2024.

The rugby league club also has a historical debt of £1.5m which was transferred in 2013 from Salford Football Club (1914) Ltd.

Coun Robin Garrido, leader of Salford Conservatives, claimed the expected losses after buying the stadium have not been made public and are kept in a confidential report about the purchase."

This was Oct 2024 - more support has been given since then.

None of the payments made by the council have been repaid.

I absolutely accept I'm an outlier here, but that hardly gets me worked up tbh. I do expect the numbers are far higher, particularly when you look at things like stadium investment.

[RP London]

People obviously dont think that this has been handled correctly but the other real option was not to give them a hand out and they go bust (we saw that in union over the last few years and its not overly popular). I am not sure of any in-between option. There is no rule about overspending or spending beyond your means, maybe their should be and the cap should be about income but that is really difficult to administer so I understand why it isnt there FFP in football seems to be an utter mess so do we really want to go down that angle?

Loads of sports are trying to solve this issue and they are all struggling to get to grips with it. 

Would people really have preferred for the RFL to just say "you've made your bed" and let Salford disappear?

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, dboy said:

 

This was Oct 2024 - more support has been given since then.

Has more support been given over the last few months? Didn't the council pull back on the grant moving forward?

[Tommygilf]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

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.

I have no issue with Councils helping clubs. The recent investment into Wakefield for example, and the support the council gave prior to that, was essential in the transformation of the club (and was also notable by how much it was lacking previously). My own club have benefited from the council underwriting the funding for the redevelopment of Headingley.

Salford appears to be different though. They essentially appear to have been paying next to nothing in rent for years, which has been effectively subsided by the council, they've had what looks like 6 figure cash cash bungs given to them for nothing more than cash flow issues (not infrastructure investments), and they currently owe the council £1.7 million at least. Council support is absolutely fine but this seems to be close to taking the ######. 

I think it's right to have concerns that such behaviour from a premier club towards an LA and other creditors is damaging reputationally for the sport. Given the fragility of lots of other clubs could encourage them to act in similar ways too.

[The Masked Poster]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

are you reading people's posts?

this is pretty much an either or situation right now. Either we try and get Salford through this or we let them go bust and kick them out of the league. So number 1 priority at the moment, chosen by the RFL, is to try and get them through it.

NO ONE is saying they will then get off scott free and flash their nethers at anyone.. However, you cannot determine any "punishment" until you know what "crime" they have actually committed. So we need to get to that point where we can see what they actually do/have done when they get to the other side to then determine any "punishment".. which will then be the deterrent. 

Look, for the record, I don't want Salford to be hung drawn and quartered. I want them to be a viable club. And maybe they haven't committed any 'crimes'.
But I don't think this is how a) clubs should behave and b) how the governing body should act. You and others clearly disagree and think that all that is important now is that Salford survive and everything else is irrelevant. But I don't agree. 

[LeytherRob]

23 minutes ago, ricky said:

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

I actually am interested in this topic though. There’s plenty topics on this forum I’m not and you won’t find me participating, likewise there’s a few posters I long ago decided had nothing to say of interest to me so they went on mute and my experience is much better for it. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, RP London said:

People obviously dont think that this has been handled correctly but the other real option was not to give them a hand out and they go bust (we saw that in union over the last few years and its not overly popular). I am not sure of any in-between option. There is no rule about overspending or spending beyond your means, maybe their should be and the cap should be about income but that is really difficult to administer so I understand why it isnt there FFP in football seems to be an utter mess so do we really want to go down that angle?

Loads of sports are trying to solve this issue and they are all struggling to get to grips with it. 

Would people really have preferred for the RFL to just say "you've made your bed" and let Salford disappear?

Let's be honest, there is still a very real chance of this all going wrong and worst case the club goes belly up.

But there is an exercise in reading between the lines here. Clubs have been pretty ruthless over the years, and are often criticised for not looking at the bigger picture.  The clubs don't appear to be angry about this situation, they appear to be pretty pragmatic here. I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't because they are probably all in pretty precarious positions.

But we've seen before central funding withheld that isn't happening here.

[The Masked Poster]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I have no issue with Councils helping clubs. The recent investment into Wakefield for example, and the support the council gave prior to that, was essential in the transformation of the club (and was also notable by how much it was lacking previously). My own club have benefited from the council underwriting the funding for the redevelopment of Headingley.

Salford appears to be different though. They essentially appear to have been paying next to nothing in rent for years, which has been effectively subsided by the council, they've had what looks like 6 figure cash cash bungs given to them for nothing more than cash flow issues (not infrastructure investments), and they currently owe the council £1.7 million at least. Council support is absolutely fine but this seems to be close to taking the ######. 

I think it's right to have concerns that such behaviour from a premier club towards an LA and other creditors is damaging reputationally for the sport. Given the fragility of lots of other clubs could encourage them to act in similar ways too.

Thanks. I would have said the same but I'm not as verbose.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I have no issue with Councils helping clubs. The recent investment into Wakefield for example, and the support the council gave prior to that, was essential in the transformation of the club (and was also notable by how much it was lacking previously). My own club have benefited from the council underwriting the funding for the redevelopment of Headingley.

Salford appears to be different though. They essentially appear to have been paying next to nothing in rent for years, which has been effectively subsided by the council, they've had what looks like 6 figure cash cash bungs given to them for nothing more than cash flow issues (not infrastructure investments), and they currently owe the council £1.7 million at least. Council support is absolutely fine but this seems to be close to taking the ######. 

I think it's right to have concerns that such behaviour from a premier club towards an LA and other creditors is damaging reputationally for the sport. Given the fragility of lots of other clubs could encourage them to act in similar ways too.

On that £1.7m that is owed to the council - it would appear that c£1.5m of it was historic pre-2013. So are we suggesting that they have borrowed only an extra £200k from the council in the last 11 years?

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

I think it's right to have concerns that such behaviour from a premier club towards an LA and other creditors is damaging reputationally for the sport. Given the fragility of lots of other clubs could encourage them to act in similar ways too.

My understanding is that Salford have an excellent relationship with a very supportive council.  

I feel the narrative is being created that there is a lot of underhand behaviour and that SRD are taking advantage of the poor council.

[LeytherRob]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

On that £1.7m that is owed to the council - it would appear that c£1.5m of it was historic pre-2013. So are we suggesting that they have borrowed only an extra £200k from the council in the last 11 years?

The debt will only factor in loans, they’ve also been received grants which wouldn’t be repayable. The article you are quoting those figures from includes mention of a £315,000 grant in March 2024.

[The Masked Poster]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do challenge that though in that they may not need to sell players. That may not be the solution. I expect it is a balancing act here and they may need to move very quickly if any takeover/investment gets delayed further or falls away, but selling players isn't the only option on the table. It's why I don't understand the cynicism about whether there is even an investor - if there wasn't one, I see no reason for King to not sell players and try and secure survival. It's the actions of somebody who is working towards investment.

I would also add that people are calling the RFL incompetent and/or toothless, when in reality, maybe they know exactly what is happening. Don't you find it strange that they aren't getting stick from clubs for not selling? Or the governing body are not being firmer? It suggests that there is hope of something else behind the scenes.

And the only people basically being told to mind their own business are those demanding to know the potential investors. That isn't any of their business and it is entirely reasonable if an investor wants confidentiality. Nosey people like us on a forum don't get to demand to know everything (at least not without being told to 'b*gger off'!)

I don't expect to know the names and addresses of everyone involved, or particularly want to. But in these last ditch scenarios, it's usual for something like this to happen.... "Bruddersford Town have been thrown a lifeline with a last minute takeover bid led by a consortium led by former player Ken Smith". Or words to that effect. 
Things like "overseas investment group" are just completely vague and offer no conviction that it will actually happen. Which is the concern most people have

[Dave T]

Just now, LeytherRob said:

The debt will only factor in loans, they’ve also been received grants which wouldn’t be repayable. The article you are quoting those figures from includes mention of a £315,000 grant in March 2024.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. Even in the recent stuff where there has been talk about council funding, IIRC it was mentioned that it was linked with delivering in the community. 

Councils provide grants for all sorts of things, I think if it was for the local historic theatre/cinema/botanic gardens, it would be a little less controlversial.

[JohnM]

43 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.

It's ok to "like" something but not to "dislike" something? Sometimes, some posters need to step back and look at the big picture, to see themselves as others see them.

My own position is that whilst debate and discussion is free and unfettered, it's valid to express the view that there's a degree of obsession, paranoia almost, at play here. No harm, surely in advising a bit more self control from posters all.

Wdyjsoytsagadslbi.

Edited January 29 by JohnM

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, The Masked Poster said:

I don't expect to know the names and addresses of everyone involved, or particularly want to. But in these last ditch scenarios, it's usual for something like this to happen.... "Bruddersford Town have been thrown a lifeline with a last minute takeover bid led by a consortium led by former player Ken Smith". Or words to that effect. 
Things like "overseas investment group" are just completely vague and offer no conviction that it will actually happen. Which is the concern most people have

It's perfectly reasonable to be cynical that a takeover won't happen - they often fail. But that isn't linked to whether we know the names or not - wasn't it 12/24m ago that the local businessman was meant to be taking them over - and we knew his name (although I can't recall it now!).

 

[Dave T]

Just now, JohnM said:

It's ok to "like" something but not to "dislike" something. Sometimes, some posters need to step back and look at the big picture, to see themselves as others see them.

My own position is that whilst debate and discussion is free and unfettered, it's valid to express the view that there's a degree of obsession, paranoia almost, at play here. No harm, surely in advising a bit more self control from posters all.

I also think sometimes people just need to see these things in the spirit they are intended. This thread may be scores of pages long, but in reality, if this was a group of people discussing this over a pint, it'd be no more than a 20 minute chat. It's hardly a slog.

[LeytherRob]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

My understanding is that Salford have an excellent relationship with a very supportive council.  

I feel the narrative is being created that there is a lot of underhand behaviour and that SRD are taking advantage of the poor council.

I think the frequent public comments from Paul King regarding the council not coming through for this or that does undermine that relationship and you can see that reflect down into comments in the SRD fan base about the council not helping them etc.

And yes before anyone replies to say ‘but Paul King recently took ownership and said the blame rests with him as CEO etc’, he did say that but it’s a meaningless platitude when every other statement he makes pushes blame onto everyone but him. 

 

[RP London]

Just now, The Masked Poster said:

Look, for the record, I don't want Salford to be hung drawn and quartered. I want them to be a viable club. And maybe they haven't committed any 'crimes'.
But I don't think this is how a) clubs should behave and b) how the governing body should act. You and others clearly disagree and think that all that is important now is that Salford survive and everything else is irrelevant. But I don't agree. 

again, are you actually reading people posts? 

I cannot see anyone saying this is how clubs should behave... in fact almost everyone i have read has said they do not agree with it including me... I am just at a point where we should solve the current situation in front of us right now.

equally as a governing body, how do you want them to behave? tell Salford to shove off and go bust like union did? 

They are trying to help them out and help them get to the point they can actually get investment, this seems like an utterly responsible way to work. They have also put in some rules that Salford need to follow and Martyn has pointed out how they will work. At the moment there appears to be an investor and it would seem prudent to keep salford as a going concern while that is going on. If that investor pulls out (or doesnt exist) then lets see if the RFL have any teeth then, if they dont then I will be dissapointed and will be saying so, at the moment it seems harsh to berate an organisation for acting in a responsible manner until proven otherwise. 

You seem to want to ignore that people are actually saying, this is a rubbish solution and we should not have got here when they are stating exactly that, they are just also going on to try and get through the situation we do actually find ourselves in. If you were lost in a forest would you be there just continually saying "we shouldnt have come this way, we shouldnt have come this way" or are you going to try and find your way out?

Yes getting to this point is poor but what is your solution, you keep complaining but what is your solution?

[dboy]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I absolutely accept I'm an outlier here, but that hardly gets me worked up tbh. I do expect the numbers are far higher, particularly when you look at things like stadium investment.

I don't expect any kind of emotion about it - I'm merely giving you the info you, until now, thought was "vague".

Just FYI.