Does anyone have any actual details about the stadium and the financial mess around it.

At the moment salford rlfc seem to being criticised for something we dont own or control.

Also who owns what in this stadium, does the club have any share in it matter what size?

I am lead to believe it is a 50/50 split with Peel and the council.

Why dont salford council want to sell?

If its a liability, you would think they would welcome Koukash's money?

Subject has been flogged to death

This is only my opinion of what is likley to happen. Koukash will get his hands on the stadium but for the council to justify selling shares in the city's only stadium they have to give a reason for doing so, so why not loan the stadium some money wait for the repercussions of bad press and opposition council members to object then it gives the council a clear pathway to sell recovering money loaned out previously. To me it seems funny how Koukash was so keen on buying the stadium one minute then to fall completely silent on the matter the next.

When you refer to the financial mess are you basing this on accounts published by the Salford Star a few weeks ago? I say this because the last accounts filled were from 2011 and included only a few weeks of trading just after it opened, rather than a full year. As you can appreciate this would undoutedly not a give a true reflection of the stadium company's trading performance.

Full page in todays MEN reporting on the £1.2m loan the stadium received. The council agm were told it was needed due to missed rent payments from Salford last season.

I've not seen the article but that equates to approximately 90K rent a game, surely not.

Don't forget that the club also has offices and the shop which sad as it may be I doubt any were paid for.

Don't really see why the powers that be aren't snatching the Docs hand off if he wants to pay them a fair price and take over from them.

Koukash will get his way I'm sure of it.

My understanding is the council stand to make a substantial return on their investment (long term) from the entire site. If there was discussions over purchasing the stadium they may have been ed around throwing in some development land the council and Peel may be reluctant to sell.

Didn't the Doctor say a few months back that the club needed an additional revenue stream? Perhaps his plan is to acquire some development land and build something to benefit the club financially over many years.

I think we need to be really thankful we have Koukash.

The more you look into the numbers on this the whole thing was one big cluster f*ck.

Don't see what the problem is, the stadium JVC is owned by The Council and Peel, they lend the JVC money borrowed at Preferential rates, the JVC pays back at Commercial rates from revenue raised at the stadium. In effect the Council and Peel are lending themselves money and then paying themselves back (at a profit). Financial trickery, but all designed to appear on the JVC accounts. The problem with the JVC is the historic debt owed by the old regime at the Reds, and now covered by the CVA. The early days of the stadium were never going to work financially as there was only one tenant. There are two now and possibly a third on the way. The big issue is that the City Council decided to build a Community Stadium and clearly got their due diligence wrong, this has saddled the JVC with some debt. The game was always going to be a long one before the land development started to pay back the speculative development of the stadium. Peel are quite used to land banking and showing the site in their accounts as an asset. The Council is always open to scrutiny and clearly has to explain in simple terms what it's strategy over the whole Barton Site is.

Don't see what the problem is, the stadium JVC is owned by The Council and Peel, they lend the JVC money borrowed at Preferential rates, the JVC pays back at Commercial rates from revenue raised at the stadium. In effect the Council and Peel are lending themselves money and then paying themselves back (at a profit). Financial trickery, but all designed to appear on the JVC accounts. The problem with the JVC is the historic debt owed by the old regime at the Reds, and now covered by the CVA. The early days of the stadium were never going to work financially as there was only one tenant. There are two now and possibly a third on the way. The big issue is that the City Council decided to build a Community Stadium and clearly got their due diligence wrong, this has saddled the JVC with some debt. The game was always going to be a long one before the land development started to pay back the speculative development of the stadium. Peel are quite used to land banking and showing the site in their accounts as an asset. The Council is always open to scrutiny and clearly has to explain in simple terms what it's strategy over the whole Barton Site is.

Whoops

The problem is we don't have a ground and rent that is clearly unaffordable.

It would have only been a matter of time before we go bankrupt again if not for the Doctor. No way having enough money to develop the infrastructure to build a side fit for superleage.

Sale can run at huge losses we can't.

The only way to fix the situation is to develop the ground properly and make it dual purpose for business (conference centre), etc.

In the mean time the council tax payer loses money.

We need to own this ground.

Bill52 the site will not show in Peels accounts, how can it they don't own it. They may show a share holding in their accounts representing the 50% ownership of a separate company which is loosing money and needs to be propped up by additional loans. Salford RLFC have to be held accountable for not paying the rent irrespective of the fact it is now ring fenced by a 5 year CVA at the end of the day it is again taxpayers money funding a commercial organisation which clearly is non profitable and one would question solvent.

Glad you're not my accountant Marshy

Of course it will show in Peel's accounts - the 50% stakeholding will have had an agreed value at the point it happened, if that value has changed then it must be reflected on the balance sheet.

It would only be reflected in the number of shares, irrespective of that the fact the mess is being bailed out using taxpayers money is a disgrace wouldn't you agree.??

But it is a JVC that owns the stadium, not the Council, or Peel, ie off Balance Sheet, and should the venture go tits up, it does not fall back on The Council, or Peel. It would be the Stadium Management Company that would go into Administration. Which to be fair was what happened with Red City Developments, it did not fall back on the Reds or any of the other investors (including Peel) when it went into Administration.

Marshy give me an honest answer. Do you think any missed rent payments from 2012 amounted to anything close to the additional loan figure taken out by the council? There is no way both Salford and Sale Sharks are paying 1.2 million a year each to play at Barton. Personally I think this loan could mainly be related to extra build costs over the original budget.

No I don't I would hazard a guess that the rent at the ground assuming all sides are open each game would be around estimated 10 k per match, I base this on knowing what we paid for LSV when running Ian Watson's testimonial game late last year. However loan charges and other costs may well swell that amount, clearly as the details are being kept under wraps it won't be broadcast as to how much rent was missed unless of course it was listed in the CVA.

Did we really need to rehash this done-to-death subject in yet another thread?

Agree with the Butcher, as I have tried to say, nowt to do with us.

But Bill it is to do with Salford, they didn't pay for the facilities they were renting. Had they done so then perhaps the Stadium Company wouldn't need top up funds.

The last regime as got a lot to answer for and that's a fact.

Could I suggest you look forwards rather than backwards.
I think everyone knows full well what a mess the business was in - what's the point of labouring it ?