Reported that Sale are to have primacy of tenure on the ground.

Reported where? Link please. I really can't see Salford Council agreeing to that tbh.

Salford council along with everybody else seem to do whatever Peel Holdings tell them to. That's IF this is genuine.

There's a link here that will sink the hearts of most Salford fans -

[url=http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/sport/rugby_union/s/1488988_sale-sharks-stadium-move-and-name-change-will-follow-superstar-signing-danny-ciprianiSale movements[/url

Although it says nothing of Primacy, it mentions talks being concluded, a name change to attract Salford/Manchester based support, and most worryingly, openly saying how great it is for them to be able to poach the best RL youngsters as they will be playing under their noses at Heywood road.

I can see us being slowly strangled.

It wouldn't surprise me to see Kennedy snap up the Reds to run us into the ground as with Stockport County.

I thought our contact was for primacy - but it doesn't say so here: www.salford.gov.uk/pr-10-2754.htm

I thought our contact was for primacy - but it doesn't say so here: www.salford.gov.uk/pr-10-2754.htm

Steve Diamond apparently said it at a Q&A with Sale fans.

Though he's upset them with plans to drop the Sale part of the name.

www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read ... 3,13147509 Quote Barton move to be decided withing 2/3 days as pre season ground audit required before 31 March; Would play 2/3 of matches at Barton on a Friday night with 8:00pm kick off time, the other games to be played on Saturdays; Would have primacy of tenure'"

www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read ... 3,13147509 Quote Barton move to be decided withing 2/3 days as pre season ground audit required before 31 March; Would play 2/3 of matches at Barton on a Friday night with 8:00pm kick off time, the other games to be played on Saturdays; Would have primacy of tenure'"

The difference in tone in rugby league and union stories in the MEN is remarkable.
[i:jorp62jk'Sale's [istunning[/i:jorp62jk capture of England fly-half Danny Cipriani is [i:jorp62jkdominating[/i

It does make me smile when people say the Sharks will be ditching their history and disregarding tradition by dropping Sale. They did that a long time ago when they adopted the 'sharks' moniker.

Bad bad news, all the young rugby being poached by Union clubs now we're playing at Heywood road. A really bad bad choice. I'm sorry to say this could be the beginning of the end.

The end is near.

Anyone else feel as though the club have just completed their walk into a rather large, obvious trap?

from the horse's month, it will cut Salford's expenditure and allow more money for the team, it is also a 50/50 arrangement, normal yawnian talking big, I would suspect Manchester Sharks will have primacy during their season ans Salford reds during our season, the Heywood road stuff is just trying to woo the Sale Shark fans, and indicates that Yawnian must reckon that the best rugby players are league players, an underarm compliment.

Trouble is, the Club's hand was forced by the RL demanding new Stadia. Once we relinquished ownership and became tenants, anything the Stadium Company wants it can do.

It only seems like a trap now because we know how underhand Kennedy and RU can be.

I do feel the beginning of the end may have just started.

Good post. Things are deteriorating even faster than those of us who saw this happening feared.

We need some clear answers in regards to what is happening. The comments regarding poaching our players is outrageous yet predictable. The question that arises is why on earth have Salford agreed to play there?

I have no faith whatsoever in the ability of the people working at Salford to resist us being subsumed by Sale/Manchester RU. Dave Tarry CEO of Manchester City Reds RL within the next decade.

Which horsess mouth?

I suppose there is always the expenditure thing. I'm just very suspicious of motives with regards to most things Sale.

So who's season is February, March, April and May (and possibly September)?

I'd like to know the details of how/if a deal would cut our expenditure, but it seems as though we're only going to find that out 2nd hand from what Sale are telling their fans.

can not say at present sorry, but it did put a downer at a meeting i was at on Monday night.

50/50 rent for one

I fail to understand how this would lead to Salford's expenditure being lowered? Surely the SMC will want to maximise profits - if we're not doing that then they're unlikely to reduce the money that does actually come in from us. Not unless Sale are getting completely and utterly shafted in terms of the rent they're paying. Or unless I'm missing something obvious?

50/50 as in Salford and Sale will pay the same as each other, or 50/50 in terms of Sale and Salford will both pay half of what Salford are currently paying? The latter doesn't seem to stack up as we've heard plenty about how Sale have been negotiating on cost as though they found the rent excessive.

Currently we are paying rent on the stadium for the whole year, if another tenant moves in the rent and repayments also to the council will be shared between the two therefore in theory a 50% reduction in costs for Salford. Thats the impression I got on Monday night.

Rather than pay off debt in half the time?

Yeah, but if you're a landlord with two rooms to lease out and a mortgage to repay, you generally have a rental fee per room; you don't halve them both if you manage to let both out - unless you're not bothered about making money.

if Salford pay as much as they are paying now and Sale/Manchester only pay rent the debt would still be paid off in the same period, the only way it would be paid off in half the time is if both clubs continue to pay the same as Salford now, unlikely because of the rent issue and Sale/Manchester negotiations, some of the rent pays off the debt as far as I am aware. like a HP agreement.