Salford financial issues(again…)

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

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. 

 

I've made it pretty clear in this thread that I don't find King to be particularly impressive - but I think the Salford council statement on all this was absolutely supportive and does back up their commitments over the years. 

I think King comes across as chippy, but I think the explanation of where a funding gap came in was reasonable.

[The Masked Poster]

Just now, RP London said:

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?

I'm reading posts fine thanks for the patronage. I just happen to disagree that all this was inevitable and 'just happened'. As for the solution, that's not my job- but that's ok, it looks like it's nobody else's either. 

If someone crashes their car, we first check if they are ok and not injured. If they keep crashing their car every month, we maybe start wondering why it keeps happening.

Or maybe we could say "all that matters is they aren't injured". It depends on your perspective really.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, dboy said:

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.

I gave you a thanks acknowledgement for your post, I appreciate the information. My post wasn't meant to be dismissive of your post or anything/

[dboy]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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

Yes, it seems that that has been the trigger.

The point being they shouldn't be living on hand-outs in the first place.

I hope new owners come in and get a grip of the business.

[dboy]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I gave you a thanks acknowledgement for your post, I appreciate the information. My post wasn't meant to be dismissive of your post or anything/

Didn't take it as such

[Charlie]

Just now, dboy said:

Yes, it seems that that has been the trigger.

The point being they shouldn't be living on hand-outs in the first place.

I hope new owners come in and get a grip of the business.

Every club lives on handouts ? Just from owners, you’d think Salford’s potential owners would realise they’d have to pay the difference like the others do 

[LeytherRob]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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!).

 

It was Seb Gerrard who owns Gerard’s of Swinton. Although he very much made himself public on this before he disappeared altogether

 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, dboy said:

Yes, it seems that that has been the trigger.

The point being they shouldn't be living on hand-outs in the first place.

I hope new owners come in and get a grip of the business.

But aren't we all? If clubs are able to form partnerships and garner support from their councils, I think that's perfectly reasonable tbh.

[RP London]

5 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I'm reading posts fine thanks for the patronage. I just happen to disagree that all this was inevitable and 'just happened'. As for the solution, that's not my job- but that's ok, it looks like it's nobody else's either. 

If someone crashes their car, we first check if they are ok and not injured. If they keep crashing their car every month, we maybe start wondering why it keeps happening.

Or maybe we could say "all that matters is they aren't injured". It depends on your perspective really.

to be fair you keep complaining that people are saying things they arent so your obviously not reading them fine. 

At the moment what is the alternative? I'd love to hear one.

Also what do you want put in place to stop them getting here before?

this is an opinion based forum, people are putting forward ideas, you just keep saying "but we shouldnt have let them get here".. everyone agrees but many of us are just struggling to see how you stop it happening... if you havent got a solution then maybe there isnt one and we have to accept where we are. To use your analogy of a car crash, yes you can stop that single person crashing their car and ROSPA help reduce car crashes by looking at causes and problem areas but they also accept that you cannot stop them all, so the switch then is in car safety WHEN they do crash. Perhaps that is where we are here, we know this stuff happens, we are doing all we actually can to stop it but we know that it can and will still happen so its about the best scenario from there.

[Expatknight]

2 minutes ago, The Masked Poster said:

I'm reading posts fine thanks for the patronage. I just happen to disagree that all this was inevitable and 'just happened'. As for the solution, that's not my job- but that's ok, it looks like it's nobody else's either. 

If someone crashes their car, we first check if they are ok and not injured. If they keep crashing their car every month, we maybe start wondering why it keeps happening.

Or maybe we could say "all that matters is they aren't injured". It depends on your perspective really.

I quite like that analogy.

[Charlie]

8 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

It was Seb Gerrard who owns Gerard’s of Swinton. Although he very much made himself public on this before he disappeared altogether

 

There’s been a few who have looked at buying the club but pulled out when they released Salford don’t own the ground or make any money off it( that may change now )

[phiggins]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

But aren't we all? If clubs are able to form partnerships and garner support from their councils, I think that's perfectly reasonable tbh.

I think the issue is Salford have been budgeting based on hypotheticals. Their stadium lease agreement may be crippling, but they then budgeted for the council buying the stadium and giving them a favourable lease at a time when the council had not even voted in favour of the purchase, and there wasn't cross party support of it.

The frustration is that the severity of the issues they have has been avoidable, but the Salford's board ability to assess risk has been sadly lacking. Then they have gone for an all or nothing approach, refusing to listen to approaches for high earners while hoping a moneyman comes in to save the day. I would be angry if I were a Salford fan.

The bizarre thing is, there are players they could offload and remain competitive imo. One of the three high earning centres would be a quick win. Brierley wasn't even a guaranteed starter at the end of last season and likely on a decent sized contract.

Had they cut their playing budget for this year, I would've backed them to remain competitive, particularly at home, and had something to build on when investment came through, or the stadium lease became more favourable.

[LeytherRob]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've made it pretty clear in this thread that I don't find King to be particularly impressive - but I think the Salford council statement on all this was absolutely supportive and does back up their commitments over the years. 

I think King comes across as chippy, but I think the explanation of where a funding gap came in was reasonable.

I’ve got no issues with the council supporting and I think we’re broadly aligned on this, although I don’t agree with your point on the explanation for the funding gap. At the point of making those budgets, Paul King had experienced first hand that these things don’t always follow through and seen the stadium deal dragging on. It was incredibly irresponsible, reckless and I feel like a crazy person when I see people still defending him and asking what else could he do.
 

[Charlie]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

I think the issue is Salford have been budgeting based on hypotheticals. Their stadium lease agreement may be crippling, but they then budgeted for the council buying the stadium and giving them a favourable lease at a time when the council had not even voted in favour of the purchase, and there wasn't cross party support of it.

The frustration is that the severity of the issues they have has been avoidable, but the Salford's board ability to assess risk has been sadly lacking. Then they have gone for an all or nothing approach, refusing to listen to approaches for high earners while hoping a moneyman comes in to save the day. I would be angry if I were a Salford fan.

The bizarre thing is, there are players they could offload and remain competitive imo. One of the three high earning centres would be a quick win. Brierley wasn't even a guaranteed starter at the end of last season and likely on a decent sized contract.

Had they cut their playing budget for this year, I would've backed them to remain competitive, particularly at home, and had something to build on when investment came through, or the stadium lease became more favourable.

If 1.2 is all Salford can afford and I’m a fan, there no way we’d be competitive best would be to pull out of sl and start again. 
 

hopefully investors come in and things can be run abit more professional 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, phiggins said:

I think the issue is Salford have been budgeting based on hypotheticals. Their stadium lease agreement may be crippling, but they then budgeted for the council buying the stadium and giving them a favourable lease at a time when the council had not even voted in favour of the purchase, and there wasn't cross party support of it.

 

I'm not sure of the issue on this specific point - that's how all plans are created. But I do accept that some are riskier than others. I'd like to think if they built in benefit to the change in stadium ownership though that it was based on knowledge and discussions (and the stadium has changed hands).

I broadly agree with the rest of your post.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

I’ve got no issues with the council supporting and I think we’re broadly aligned on this, although I don’t agree with your point on the explanation for the funding gap. At the point of making those budgets, Paul King had experienced first hand that these things don’t always follow through and seen the stadium deal dragging on. It was incredibly irresponsible, reckless and I feel like a crazy person when I see people still defending him and asking what else could he do.
 

I think that's a fair view - there was obviously a high degree of risk in his financial plan. But a £300k+ grant being withdrawn is a fairly sizeable hole even without the other pieces.

[Tommygilf]

26 minutes 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?

 

23 minutes 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.

Salford and the council are clearly very agreeable to eachother and that really is great for the club. Lots of clubs have received financial and other support from their LA. Those sums quoted above are only direct support given. The deal with Salford seems more ad hoc than with others, or perhaps paradoxically, more routine.

I think the narrative is that Salford are taking advantage of anyone they can and doing so to live beyond their means. I don't think it's extraordinary to look at that and think it's unfair.

The line to the council and the RFL/other SL clubs at various points for various reasons seems to be "you can't let us go bust now, so what you gonna do?". That sort of behaviour doesn't sit well with me, whether it benefits an RL club or not.

[LeytherRob]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think that's a fair view - there was obviously a high degree of risk in his financial plan. But a £300k+ grant being withdrawn is a fairly sizeable hole even without the other pieces.

From Salford/Paul Kings statement on 15th Jan:

Salford City Council Community Funding

In March 24 it was suggested by Salford City Council the Club could receive a subsidy control grant to support Rugby League and the rugby development pathway in the City of Salford and Greater Manchester. This is akin to other Salford community entities who have received similar funding i.e. The Lowry and RHS Bridgewater. The Club were notified in July 24 of a delay and again in September 24 with a further delay until November 24, again impacting financial forecasting.

In November 24, Salford City Council advised that the subsidy control grant was not available due to funding shortfalls elsewhere, the impact of which was that the Club had already committed funds to player and staff recruitment and paid for pre-season preparations including a warm weather camp in Portugal. Effectively, these projected funds had already been allocated.

For a start, for me, words like 'suggested' and 'could receive' really don't sound like anything could be withdrawn and considering this is the naturally biased statement of SRD/PK, even they don't sound convinced it was a done deal. Also, there were 2 delays in July and September, WAY before the funds would have needed to be committed for a preseason jolly and they made the moves to sign Bullock, Hill and Sangare which were all done closer to November. 

The whole thing reads to me like SRD probably figured the chances of getting the grant were diminishing and thought if they allocated the funds it might force the councils hand to push through the grant. 

 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Salford and the council are clearly very agreeable to eachother and that really is great for the club. Lots of clubs have received financial and other support from their LA. Those sums quoted above are only direct support given. The deal with Salford seems more ad hoc than with others, or perhaps paradoxically, more routine.

I think the narrative is that Salford are taking advantage of anyone they can and doing so to live beyond their means. I don't think it's extraordinary to look at that and think it's unfair.

The line to the council and the RFL/other SL clubs at various points for various reasons seems to be "you can't let us go bust now, so what you gonna do?". That sort of behaviour doesn't sit well with me, whether it benefits an RL club or not.

The bit in bold - I broadly agree with this. I don't particularly like King's approach and don't find him impressive based on his media interviews etc. However, and maybe I'm showing my banking background mentality here, so try not to judge me too much, but I think there is a case that as a wheeler dealer he is doing exactly what he has to do and it's a ruthless space he's playing in. 

This thread is loaded with claims of "here we go again", "they can't keep doing this" etc - but I'm not too sure what people mean when they say this. As the numbers have shown - over the last dozen years they have built up debt to the council of around £200k. Any other commercial or funding agreements they come up with between themselves is a case of good for them tbh, and people using them securing support from the council as a bad thing is misguided imo. I did note in that article that the council are also owed c£200k from Swinton RLFC.

My personal view is that the narrative is over the top against Salford tbh. I see them as a club that is struggling, and ultimately their destiny may be outside of SL (the gradings saw them drop from 8th to 12th in 12m, despite them finishing 4th in the ladder). But they are doing whatever they can to survive, and that has mainly involved getting support from the council and a couple of advances of their funding.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, LeytherRob said:

From Salford/Paul Kings statement on 15th Jan:

Salford City Council Community Funding

In March 24 it was suggested by Salford City Council the Club could receive a subsidy control grant to support Rugby League and the rugby development pathway in the City of Salford and Greater Manchester. This is akin to other Salford community entities who have received similar funding i.e. The Lowry and RHS Bridgewater. The Club were notified in July 24 of a delay and again in September 24 with a further delay until November 24, again impacting financial forecasting.

In November 24, Salford City Council advised that the subsidy control grant was not available due to funding shortfalls elsewhere, the impact of which was that the Club had already committed funds to player and staff recruitment and paid for pre-season preparations including a warm weather camp in Portugal. Effectively, these projected funds had already been allocated.

For a start, for me, words like 'suggested' and 'could receive' really don't sound like anything could be withdrawn and considering this is the naturally biased statement of SRD/PK, even they don't sound convinced it was a done deal. Also, there were 2 delays in July and September, WAY before the funds would have needed to be committed for a preseason jolly and they made the moves to sign Bullock, Hill and Sangare which were all done closer to November. 

The whole thing reads to me like SRD probably figured the chances of getting the grant were diminishing and thought if they allocated the funds it might force the councils hand to push through the grant. 

 

That's all fair, and goes along with the view of a high level of risk in the plan. I'm not sure I come to the same conclusion as you in the last para (although the overseas training was a bad idea and a bad look - irrespective of any funding tbh).

I do think it is important to note that while all these things have been happening (and we naturally focus on the crazy trip to the Med for example) they have also been setting up their Academy pathway, IIRC they were even appointing coaches in December.

[The Future is League]

22 hours ago, Charlie said:

It’s there money anyway just early I’m not sure what some of you think the rfl can do in this situation 

What happens when they have spent this money?

There is no more money to be had from the RFL when this money runs out, so what happens IF there are no new owners in place?

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

From Salford/Paul Kings statement on 15th Jan:

Salford City Council Community Funding

In March 24 it was suggested by Salford City Council the Club could receive a subsidy control grant to support Rugby League and the rugby development pathway in the City of Salford and Greater Manchester. This is akin to other Salford community entities who have received similar funding i.e. The Lowry and RHS Bridgewater. The Club were notified in July 24 of a delay and again in September 24 with a further delay until November 24, again impacting financial forecasting.

In November 24, Salford City Council advised that the subsidy control grant was not available due to funding shortfalls elsewhere, the impact of which was that the Club had already committed funds to player and staff recruitment and paid for pre-season preparations including a warm weather camp in Portugal. Effectively, these projected funds had already been allocated.

For a start, for me, words like 'suggested' and 'could receive' really don't sound like anything could be withdrawn and considering this is the naturally biased statement of SRD/PK, even they don't sound convinced it was a done deal. Also, there were 2 delays in July and September, WAY before the funds would have needed to be committed for a preseason jolly and they made the moves to sign Bullock, Hill and Sangare which were all done closer to November. 

The whole thing reads to me like SRD probably figured the chances of getting the grant were diminishing and thought if they allocated the funds it might force the councils hand to push through the grant. 

 

I remember having a conversation with a sports team we sponsored when we didnt renew the next year, even though we have been saying it was highly unlikley for the previous few months. Their main argument was "but we'd budgeted for your support" almost emotional blackmail. I ended up having to say "well you shouldnt have done becuase we had been saying it was highly unlikely and needed xyz to happen which you havent done/won"... same as when people said "but i budgeted for my bonus being xyz" when they havent met their targets.. tough!

[RP London]

24 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

 

Salford and the council are clearly very agreeable to eachother and that really is great for the club. Lots of clubs have received financial and other support from their LA. Those sums quoted above are only direct support given. The deal with Salford seems more ad hoc than with others, or perhaps paradoxically, more routine.

I think the narrative is that Salford are taking advantage of anyone they can and doing so to live beyond their means. I don't think it's extraordinary to look at that and think it's unfair.

The line to the council and the RFL/other SL clubs at various points for various reasons seems to be "you can't let us go bust now, so what you gonna do?". That sort of behaviour doesn't sit well with me, whether it benefits an RL club or not.

absolutely agree, especially the last paragraph. What the RFL now need to do is to work out how they can stop this happening though. Mid season clubs going bust is terrible for the comp, pre season maybe not so much. How do you guarantee situations, a set of accounts wont necessarily show you what you need and you cannot have all costs secured 6 months ahead of time etc.. its a tough one... is it a case of letting them go to show you mean it, but thats been done before and it doesnt stop the next club trying this "blagging system"..

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The bit in bold - I broadly agree with this. I don't particularly like King's approach and don't find him impressive based on his media interviews etc. However, and maybe I'm showing my banking background mentality here, so try not to judge me too much, but I think there is a case that as a wheeler dealer he is doing exactly what he has to do and it's a ruthless space he's playing in. 

This thread is loaded with claims of "here we go again", "they can't keep doing this" etc - but I'm not too sure what people mean when they say this. As the numbers have shown - over the last dozen years they have built up debt to the council of around £200k. Any other commercial or funding agreements they come up with between themselves is a case of good for them tbh, and people using them securing support from the council as a bad thing is misguided imo. I did note in that article that the council are also owed c£200k from Swinton RLFC.

My personal view is that the narrative is over the top against Salford tbh. I see them as a club that is struggling, and ultimately their destiny may be outside of SL (the gradings saw them drop from 8th to 12th in 12m, despite them finishing 4th in the ladder). But they are doing whatever they can to survive, and that has mainly involved getting support from the council and a couple of advances of their funding.

I worked in a solicitors dealing with commercial law and property (I hope we didn't have any of the same clients), I think your assessment of King is spot on!

I get what you are saying regarding what has happened, but I think it is either blind to or is willfully ignorant of the other benefits Salford have had. Part of the reason Salford now take loans off the council too is because by defaulting on the CVA made them very unlikeable to creditors.

And that is before us getting to the leniency allegedly being shown by the RFL. The special measures imposed last year seem to have been alleviated with a 315k loan in March yet precisely zero changes appear to have been implemented to prevent or reduce the risk of it happening again. And barely a month or so after the end of the season Salford are asking for nearly half their central funding to be given in advance. Even in 2023 they had signed Croft on a deal they openly said they couldn't afford. 

I can see why others would see a sense of unfairness about this situation. Why should others not take advantage (of particularly the RFL systems) other than not wanting to look bad?

[LeytherRob]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The bit in bold - I broadly agree with this. I don't particularly like King's approach and don't find him impressive based on his media interviews etc. However, and maybe I'm showing my banking background mentality here, so try not to judge me too much, but I think there is a case that as a wheeler dealer he is doing exactly what he has to do and it's a ruthless space he's playing in. 

This thread is loaded with claims of "here we go again", "they can't keep doing this" etc - but I'm not too sure what people mean when they say this. As the numbers have shown - over the last dozen years they have built up debt to the council of around £200k. Any other commercial or funding agreements they come up with between themselves is a case of good for them tbh, and people using them securing support from the council as a bad thing is misguided imo. I did note in that article that the council are also owed c£200k from Swinton RLFC.

My personal view is that the narrative is over the top against Salford tbh. I see them as a club that is struggling, and ultimately their destiny may be outside of SL (the gradings saw them drop from 8th to 12th in 12m, despite them finishing 4th in the ladder). But they are doing whatever they can to survive, and that has mainly involved getting support from the council and a couple of advances of their funding.

My point on this is that the 200k doesn't paint the full picture, because when you tally up all the other bits they've had to do - player sales of Dupree/Crof/Ackers, the one of share sales, the grants - it actually ends up being about 800k p/a shortfall. Salford have manage to secure themselves more 6 figure transfer fees in the past few years than the rest of the league combined in the last 20 years. Which is great, but it's just not sustainable because eventually you just can't find this years Brodie Croft or Jackson Hastings and the whole thing falls apart and the same goes for the share scheme. Those monies should have been spent servicing some of their debt or at least investing in their infrastructure, but it all went on a dream of playoff rugby that hasn't even paid off because crowds have not improved.