If they have any full stops to sell then that would be useful for eccles star.

If you look there are full stops in it just look for capital letters

Who would want to buy the club?

Look at the last published accounts we owe over £4 million, the players we have are gutless, we don't own any real assets the last was the ground. The youth system doesn't really bring players throug when you look at other clubs.

Would you?

WRONG !
Wrong to think it and wrong to type it out.
The relentless carping will dissuade any potential investor.Just sayin...

There be Monsters, eating them Herrings, do we have a Euro quota for the number of Herrings we can catch?

Actually it is my opinion, which I am entitled to and looking at what the coach said he must be wrong to!

As to carping, its not, any potential investor will want to see everything from on field performances to off field finances. To gauge the task they have if they invest. No potential investor is going to be dissuaded due to a fans forum. They will be dissuaded by the club's debt, its poor attendances, on field performances, lack of recent history etc. etc. etc.

I have never heard such winging from fans who are supposed to love their club.what happened in London was bad,

but we should get behind the team.We are not 4million in debt, that debt is owed to John wilkinson who continues to bankroll the club.I think John wilkinson deserves better from both the fans and the players when he is doing his best to make sure we still have a club.It must be gut wrenching for him when all fans do is slag off the club.You are not doing us any favours.As for who would invest in the club? Well I certainly would if I had the money and that is because I love the club and have been a fan for forty years.So come on let's see all you real fans ,sticking up for your club and not rubbishing it all the time.

Careful there polly, talking any kind of sense/positivity is generally frowned upon.

Should be interesting to see which type of 'fan' replies...

1. The Simms hater. Who will blame anything and everything on Simms including the start of WW2 and the current financial crisis.
2. The Wilkinson doubter. A special kind of fan who blames all shortcomings on the guy who bankrolls the Club year after year.
3. The 'Ones in the know'. Special types who claim their own particular fantasy on 'pure truth' garnered from the guy who makes the burgers...
4. The Aggressives. Those who's word is truth on pain of meeting-up on a game day and playing the hard man.
5. The plastic fan. Who claims years of service, gets everything on a freebie, then whines about it.
6. The Schizo. A fan who thinks we are unbeatable when we win but offers-up suicide as an option when fuelled with booze after a loss.
7. The season ticket threatener. Someone who threatens to never ever on pain of death renew their season ticket due to a knee-jerk reaction.
8. The blatant liar. Someone who just talks dirt.
9. The 'I've been to every game since 1974 so my opinion must mean more than yours' fan. If you were a plank in 1978, after thirty-eight years you are still a plank.
10. The genuine Salford fan. Who will offer thoughtful debate on an enlightening and forward-thinking forum...I actually laughed at this one.

11. The smug barstool whose opinion is always right

12. The ostrich. Lives with their head in the sand. Defends the club at all costs.

Doesn't matter who it's owed to - a debt is a debt.

is wilko pulling out?

No idea.

What difference does that make?

£4m owed is £4m owed - doesn't matter who to.

Forgot that one!

A huge difference you massive nobber. That £4m ONLY matters if Wilko wants to recoup some / all on a potential sale. He may be happy to write it all off. Frankly, none of us have any idea what his plans are.

How rude!

A debt is a debt, whether called in or not, it's a debt. Why is that so hard to grasp?

The Wilkinson estate may well write that off in the future, in which case you won't have that debt. Until then it is on your balance sheet and is live.

I have a debt , it's called a mortgage , everyone who has a mortgage isn't technically bankrupt .. or in trouble , or living beyond their means.

it's the ability to honour repayments and/or interest on those debts. that's the issue , and who it's owed to makes alot if difference

like the way you slipped in a Smith's tune though ,
So Dboy it was really nothing ..

Absolutely 100% correct.

I never said otherwise.

The rather rude poster seems to think that because the debt is to JW, it doesn't count.

Of course, rather than a mortgage, the simili of a business loan or overdraft would be more apt.

Whilst ability to pay to schedule is initially the foremost consideration, if such facilities are called in, the poop can hit the fan.

So any sort of criticism is no longer allowed, then?

Most of us on here do care about the club, deeply. However that doesn't mean blind faith and positivity are the route that should be followed, doing that can be far more detrimental than looking at what can be improved. We're all greatful to Wilky and the other directors for keeping the club alive, but in terms of the day-to-day running of the club there has been, and continues to be, some poor decisions and poor implementation of certain things. To point these out, not ignore them and continually ask for them to be improved is all down to wanting the club to survive, improve and thrive. To take the Pravda approach is just asking for trouble.

As for the players, well, after the 'performance' against Widnes and Saturday's capitulation you have to wonder where their heads are at. Are most of them leaving? Are they just happy to pick up a cheque each week? Do some of them not give a monkey's about Salford, the supporters or anyone involved with the club? (That's not applicable to all of them, obviously.) The "rumours" of Vievers having lost the dressing room are interesting as we're currently on a similar slump as when Harrison went, baffling performances and results, arguing on the terraces, players offering fans out and so on. I hope there's nothing to it, but the similarities are there.

As for the ludicrous claims that people won't invest in the club because of the fans - look at city. They were always at odds with their owners, "Forward with Franny", etc, yet someone still came in and pumped their cash into the club. Obviously, that was due to the on-pitch and business potential for them - something which Salford will struggle to match, regardless of how much positive energy we as supporters "radiate".

I think Harrison had 5 years at the club with players he had brought in.A bit different from the current situation.

City always maintained their attendances,even when relegated.The potential to match their nearest rivals was on offer and it came from abroad.The potential for investors in soccer is worldwide - again different for Salford.

You laughed on the other thread about investment from London - Hughes at Broncos is from the north west and was a director at Charlton Athletic football club.It may be that someone else in London originates from the area and may be willing to invest.It won't be,as in the case of Manchester City,because of high attendances but it may be like Wigan and a couple of decades ago at Blackburn,someone born in the area wanting to assist the sporting club.

Quality mate

they didn't, Dec 1998 3007 against Mansfield,

I was talking about the similarities in terms of the player's reactions to defeat, not how long he's been at the club.



City's attendances have been all over the place - only the most hard faced blue would try to argue otherwise. Attendances even now are up and down (that's not a dig before anyone starts) which shows that, even with investment and success you're not guaranteed an instant jump in regular weekly crowd numbers. The potential was there mainly because of the new stadium and Manchester already being well known in football terms. I fully understand that the potential for investors is different in football and rugby league, I don't think anyone expects someone with billions to take over at Salford. But the basics are still there, just on a lower scale.



I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I doubt it. Wilkinson has made it known for a number of years that he'd like someone to come in who could take the club forward with the best interests of Salford at heart. Even North West based businessmen won't get involved, why would someone based down south get involved with a small club in a minority sport?



We've already dealt with that particular gem.



Again, Wilky's been asking for people to come forward for years. Where are they? And why the hell would they be based down south? And, even more ridiculously, why on Earth would they be dissuaded by a handful of p*ssed up bellends acting up?

Basically we need to wait For Diavlo to get a few years of his bonus's in then he can come and take over the club

I don't want to prolong this but my point was City maintained their attendances despite a lack of on-field success.I found this 'gem' on Wikipedia - [iEven in the late 1990s, when the club were relegated twice in three seasons and playing in the third tier of English football (then Division Two, now Football League One), home attendances were in the region of 30,000, compared to an average for the division of fewer than 8,000.[60 Research carried out by Manchester City in 2005 estimates a fanbase of 886,000 in the United Kingdom and a total in excess of 2 million worldwide.[/i

reasonably safe to invest when a well stocked club shop and other revenue streams would be well supported.

The guy who invested in a poorly supported club - in comparison - Who I thought made his money in Canada,but I was mistaken,if the link attached is correct.He was born in the place but did not invest until he had made many millions [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_WalkerLink[/url

My point was that an individual,perhaps born in the north west but making his money/residing elsewhere in the world,may wish to invest.
I am aware,but cannot immediately recollect,of individuals/consortiums who declined to invest in sports clubs,mainly soccer,because of the conduct of some people.I concede that the behaviour was directed at them,but I think the principle still applies.