I went to the meeting last night and took a lot of notes and have been thinking through the situation and what options there might be.

Some things to consider please, if you take the time to read this post - I am neither for for against John Wilkinson - the simple truths are :
We are where we are,
You cannot change the past - only the future,
Pouring out vitriol does no good - at this moment we need ONLY positive thinking!

The items I took from the meeting as positives were:

1: The current director's loans to the clubs are converted to shares and essentially handed over to new owners for nothing - i.e. written off
2: That has reduced the debt on the balance sheet from around £5m to £2m - presumably ~£1.5 to the council & the rest to banks who won't write things off
3: The existing board agreed they would stand down en-masse when new ownership is found.
4: There are some individuals who have already pledged that they would support a rescue (one example given was Steve McCormack)

The situation just to stay in existence is:

1: We need to find approximately £240,000 by 7th January to avoid the winding up petition being actioned. That includes about £20K to Patten and £30K to Anderson and the rest to the Inland Revenue (I'm not certain on those numbers can anyone confirm)
2: We would need another £380,000 by the start of the season to pay other creditors who have just been ignored or kept at bay for some time, that cannot continue. Those two sums make up the £600,000 that was mentioned.

My concerns over the future are:

1: The business plan is predicated on an 8,000 average home gate with 500 diners per home game - Is that achievable?
2: I believe it would be [upossible[/u to find the cash to stave off the winding up order and indeed to get to the £600,000 - you just need 600 individuals, groups or businesses to contribute £1,000 each. How likely is it that such a number could be found in the required time-scale and willing to contribute to what might still be a lost cause if the current business plan is not viable?
3: Can we as fans put together a structure within say Forever Reds with enough expertise and experience to administer such sums (taking on board the suggestion from JW that Forever Reds is the obvious vehicle to use) in the time available and would that affect the constitution of Forever Reds as a charitable trust?

A possible way forward (assuming there is enough agreement to want to go forward)

1: Forever Reds to convene a meeting of interested parties to thrash out setting up some administration and organising the fund raising
2: The club confirm what level of resources they will commit to those activities
3: We get on and JFDI !!

Finally can I again ask the Salford fans to stop fighting and point scoring amongst ourselves - if we want to watch Salford in Super League (or possibly at all!) next season we need a common purpose.

Excellent post from a Balanced man.

I would be happy to join any prospective `Think Tank` should ever one be formed.

Steve McCormick`s post on Facebook shows there is much interest from the whole community both of Salford & the greater RFL.

I wasn't under the impression Wilky actually spelled out what average attendance required is for the new 'robust business plan'? If it is 8,000 then we've got no chance, it should be based on 4.5k/5k paying customers.

The word "robust" was used several times regarding the business plan, but if a business plan is based on gates of 8k (with a drastically weakened team) then I don't see how that can be considered robust. Did JAW clearly state that next years business plan was based on 8k? I wasn't sure he did.



Just for clarification, FR does not have charitable status. It's an Industrial and Provident Society (a "benefit of the community" society).

I'm not sure now on the 8,000 - I don't think it was stated either way that it was still 8,000 in the "robust plan" or had been reduced so my assumption is that the plan remains at that level.
Yet more evidence why, if there is to be fans involvement we need to get moving and actually understand the situation fully.

Re FR status - thanks for the clarification Iain, I'm no lawyer so I don't understand the significance, but my question remains - would FR be in a position to assist in the way I've suggested?

I agree, Now should be the time the supporters attempt to put its own plan of action in place to help if possible to save the club.



To me the most respected forum & logically way forward would be through the forever reds medium.



100% agree, we all have differing opinion, we now know we are in danger of going under, we will not get many chances to put this right, how many of us are prepared to bury our differences & help give our club a fighting chance?

I don't think he did.



I believe advice is being sought on that today.

Without trying to sound smug I posted on here at the begining of the clubs tunure at barton that your then Cheif Exec had clearly stated that 8000 fans was the breakeven figure required at Barton, only to be shot down by many on here as this being incorrect. sadly from your clubs point of view it wasn't and has contributed to the sad mess your club is currently in.
I, as stated by another Lions fan sincerely hope you get a solution which keeps Salford playing Rugby League. The loss of any club is a disaster to Rugby league especially with the current strength of Rugby Union.(albeit not in Sale's case).
At long last it seems that some of your support is now getting a march on to start fund raising via a trust vehicle and I hope you are sucessful in raising the 600K needed.

No, the difference was two stances were trotted out by people at the club: one, that 8,000 was the break-even figure and two, that 8,000 was to achieve maximum salary cap spend with the break-even figure being quite lower. That Salford could not coordinate it's communication was the fact.

In a nutshell, probably.

We can fairly easily account for money in, and have safe constitutional structures for holding it, and can keep it separate for a specific fund (that could be returned if not needed) - though we need to find out more on the implications of a significantly increased turnover from a tax and audit perspective (I'm speaking to Supporters Direct about this). From an IPS laws perspective, it does ultimately depend on where the money goes and for what purpose.

I would imagine SD will mention this but I would also be sure to give the bank a call to explain why there might be more cash flowing through the bank accounts.

The way I heard it - although others outside afterwards disagreed - was that the plan was based on a reduction of £450,000 in the squad budget [iand[/i a reduction of £400,000 in expected income. If the reduction in income is true, and assuming the reduction is entirely from admission fees, then this would equate to an expected attendance of very roughly 6500. If income from other sources - sponsorship particularly, but isn't the Sky money being withheld from Bradford being distributed to other clubs? - is expected to increase next season, then the expected attendance could obviously be lower still.