Subsidised, why is it "nonsense" what else would you call it when the City Council agrees to finance and build you a ground that you (not you but the old regime) presumably asked for and couldn't afford and additionally has to find a reported £600k cash injection to keep the stadium management company afloat whilst it is owed a reported £1.5m in rent by you (the club not you personally), or have I misread the situation?

You (the new regime not you) appear to be threatening a move away from Barton to drive a bargain with the City Council that is still reportedly £20m down on the deal, as no one wants a white elephant, or have I again misread the situation?

Doing what is right and in the interests of Salford City Reds is one thing, but, you should try meeting your obligations. Otherwise you are limited to just doing what is in the interests of Salford City Reds and not right at all even undrr a new regime 'flag of convenience'.

Your assertion that Salford were subsisdised by the council is essentially wrong.

The stadium is run by a Joint Venture Company owned by Peel Holdings and Salford City Council. The JVC has developed the land in the interests of its owners. Salford have been treated as tennants and nothing more. They had no say in the design of the stadium and were charged commercial rates for rent. Salford payed for the fitting of the shop, only to be removed when they could not pay the rent. They have not received any financial advantages compared to Sale Sharks.

The JVC is a commercial operation, set up to make a profit. It may well do this in future when the land is developed further.

What is certain is that Salford RLFC have no obligations to the JVC.

When quizzed on this at Christmas, Wilky said this money was borrowed too. It was the funniest part of the meeting.

Rico, That is such a ridiculous over simplification of what happened it barely justifies a response, have you taken up writing articles for the Salford Star?

Just to put things in context - the new regime is meeting its obligations in terms of rent due on the stadium now, rent, incidentally that will eventually recover and exceed the initial investment many times over, plus (and this also seems to have slipped under your radar) it is also paying off all the debts of the previous regime through a voluntary CVA.

The irony that not being able to afford the rent following the move which so nearly put paid to the club in totality is not lost on any of us, so to suggest that the new regime should have any obligation to stay at the stadium if it's not the right deal is, actually, nonsense. Even more so, given that the Council allowed Sale Sharks to have a much better deal than their self-professed 'Anchor Tenant'.

Also, had the new regime not come along, then the City Council would have been the proud owners of a City Stadium that would have had no teams playing in it bearing the name of the City and whilst that may have pleased a couple of Councillors and some of Salford's Council Tax payers, I highly doubt that would have been their preferred outcome.

Look guys,I wish it wasn't so,but without the ratepayers of Salford we wouldn't exist in our present form,if at all.
Whether all the money owed to Salford Council is totally repaid at the end of the day will only be proven in the future.
Forget the technical argument because,for all practical purposes,of course we have been supported by and are indebted to the ratepayers of Salford.
As I say,I wish it wasn't so but it is,unfortunately

Just to pad this out a little: when Salford were invited to Maine Road around 1999/2000, it was the Council who persuaded the club to get on board with a new stadium in the city. The Council offered a piece of barren, non-descript land at a ‘peppercorn’ rent for Salford to develop on, and it was a development company largely composed of Salford’s directors that funded the project. Two relegations and a number of grandiose iterations later, with borrowings/equity leveraged on The Willows, said development company went into liquidation.

The project was salvaged by the Council and Peel, who were an early objector, with a scaled-down, cut-price model. It wasn’t what the club wanted but now they were hardly in a situation to choose otherwise.

So you are a tenant without any obligations to the landlord? Brilliant

A simple question is what's your interest? are you a rate payer in Salford?

And Koukash knows this. He wants Salford City Council’s share of the stadium and has leverage with a stadium elsewhere; Sale also have leverage with a stadium elsewhere. Who blinks first?

It's traditionally a highly competitive field but you've put down a strong marker for the prize of most ill-informed post of the week. Well done.

Out of interest, could FR apply for the stadium to be an ‘asset of community value’? mycommunityrights.org.uk/community-right-to-bid/

Out of interest, could FR apply for the stadium to be an ‘asset of community value’? mycommunityrights.org.uk/community-right-to-bid/

What is both "ridiculous"and "ironic" is your post if you care to re read what you have written. Particularly where you state and I'm paraphrasing, that the new regime is meeting its obligations that will eventually recover the 'debt' and more, but, we might just buzz off and not meet those obligations if we feel that it doesn't suit us.

Isn't that the point, simplified though it is?

Why thank you Wayward Fan your obviously entitled to that opinion, not one I share.

One thing I will agree on is that on this board it is a highly competitive field made up in the most part by your own posters

A simple answer to a simple question, yes

Fair comment, carry on like this and you will be in the running for Wayward Fan's for ill informed post of the week award

Does anyone know what the club actually wanted? If not this "scaled-down cut-price model then what and how would it have helped the situation?

Uncle Rico - The Salford rate payer who travels to Warrington to watch RL, complaining about the prospect of Salford moving out of town. Great stuff this.

Well they planned for this:



The plan was to make the club (with stadium) self-sufficient through radial developments — whether they were a retail park, a ‘supercasino’ or a hotel. Essentially this was Wilky’s legacy: to the leave the club on a sound footing. It just didn’t materialise. [url=http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/reds-stadium-firm-collapse-962005The developers went bust[/url.

In retrospect, you could argue that it was ‘pie in the sky’; you could also argue that the economic collapse five or six years ago put pay to any development funded in this way.

This is just part of the story as many of the Salford supporters on here, who lived through this saga for ten years, could tell you.

Getting back to the original point, I tend to agree with Bill’s comments earlier. We need to assess the ground if/when Salford have a side worth watching. It’s just that we need that side next year, and that may be a tough ask.

Rico ,Stones- Glass houses- Warrington Council loaned Wire 200K in the early 2000's when they were struggling . OK for them , not OK for us??
or are you trolling cos you are bored with no game to go to over the Aug bank holiday ?

Can see one of two outcomes next season.
One - We have a team who competes but plays Nobles conservative rumbling forward game, end of around 6th on the ladder and make a real tilt in the cup

Or

Two - We struggle from the off (hard to start a brand new team in an off season regardless of the quality players you bring in) and at some point Noble gets the chop from the Doc and we go down the tried and tested route of bring in an Aussie (I did think that for an outside bet he'd look at Morley for the position alongside Hunt but think that would be too much of a risk).

Can't on any level see the Doc leaving Barton, he must know that the improvements are coming on and that towards the end of next season they will be finished improving a significant gripe on match days. I still think he will get at the very least a controlling stake in the stadium and then invest not only in the infrastructure needed to make the club self financing but I'd bet that he has plans for something like a hotel somewhere on the surrounding land. I've thought with his involvement from day one that he's positioning himself for the day then race course get's the go ahead and facilities he builds at Barton for me have an eye too that.

I think some of Bill's earlier points are good but don't think we can gloss over how badly run this stadium has been from day one.

The sooner we are masters of our own destiny in this regard, the better!

Well spotted Mr Talent Spotter I must be mad supporting my home town club, rather than my local club, how bizarre is that for a concept?

BTW I'm not complaining that you might move out of town, I think I agreed with Bonita Red that it would be embarrasing and not the right thing to do given the support that you have had from the City

You have conveniently over looked the fact that only part of the debt will be paid off under the CVS and the money owed to the council will be repaid interest free, but hey nice gig when you can get it.

It doesn't matter if he watches another team, if he is a Salford Rate payer he is entitled to answers and his opinion.