www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1781 Over to you Marwan they should sign over now surely?

www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=1781 Over to you Marwan they should sign over now surely?

Fanatical trouble?

Massive pinch if salt needed for anything that rag publishes.

Hope he does get to make an offer to buy then out as would be brilliant for the club to have a stake in the ground.

Failure to control the fancy dress loving jester bellends.

Very odd. How the hell could it lose 83.3K a week after stadium rents, board advertising, conference room, gym rental and sports pitch hire? They can't have that many full time staff because most will be employed by the stadium caterers. A Manager, sales person, receptionist, cleaners, security and a groundsman and perhaps a maintenance person. erm!

Shock horror another negative Anti-Stadium - Anti Reds - Anti Mayor rant from Salford Star

Probably something to do with the amount of stewards/security staff they have on match days, that alone will cost more than whats been coming through the gate in attandance money!

How much do you think the matchday security/stewarding costs? My best guesstimate is about £5000 a match x 13 games = £65K. Hardly going to put a dent in the £4.3 Million. Another source of income for last year was the stadium rent for the challenge cup semi and an international fixture.

Whoooshhhhhhh

Please elaborate? Do you think I've under estimated the security & stewarding costs (Based on 100 people at £50) or are you questioning all the revenue streams I have mentioned above?

I was being sarcastic mate, it was said tongue in cheek.

No worries, I'm just interested to know what others think about how this loss can be so much.

Some interesting numbers - you can see the summary here https://www.duedil.com/company/07225208 ... financials BUT, these are to end of March 2012 - so last season had hardly started when these accounts finish. To answer 1 question wages & salaries in that period were £104,995 but again I don't think you can read too much into that as it's not clear whether the cost of running the stadium on match days is direct (i.e. wages) or indirect (i.e. a fee to G4S or whoever). It's hardly surprising that it shows a thumping loss as the total income was only £166,380 - I suspect the largest single cost will be servicing the loans - obviously a large chunk of that goes to the council anyway, a fact the Salford Star have conveniently ignored. What is clear, is that the stadium company seems to have a bit of a cash problem - only £70,193 in the bank!! Hence the need for a further loan, just to have some liquidity. I'd hope if Dr K does wish to buy it, then the current state can be used to drive a good bargain for the club.

Some interesting numbers - you can see the summary here https://www.duedil.com/company/07225208 ... financials BUT, these are to end of March 2012 - so last season had hardly started when these accounts finish. To answer 1 question wages & salaries in that period were £104,995 but again I don't think you can read too much into that as it's not clear whether the cost of running the stadium on match days is direct (i.e. wages) or indirect (i.e. a fee to G4S or whoever). It's hardly surprising that it shows a thumping loss as the total income was only £166,380 - I suspect the largest single cost will be servicing the loans - obviously a large chunk of that goes to the council anyway, a fact the Salford Star have conveniently ignored. What is clear, is that the stadium company seems to have a bit of a cash problem - only £70,193 in the bank!! Hence the need for a further loan, just to have some liquidity. I'd hope if Dr K does wish to buy it, then the current state can be used to drive a good bargain for the club.

Thanks for the info that tells me a lot more than the biased Salford Star article.

Probably the income projections for the stadium were based on 2 or 3 tenants from day one. Instead at day one there was one tenant (who maybe did not pay). Do not read the Star anyway, no time for stirrers. You can make a story from anything if you are selective about how you present the background. But it is my understanding that the council did not loan the stadium company a large amount of money. As a partner in the stadium company the council used its preferential borrowing facilities, and as such it was the stadium company that has to service the debt. By doing this the liability is off the Council balance sheet and the stadium co is liable to service the debt. Same story as the Star but doesn't make pretty ill hidden innuendo. Enough said.

Quote ="BartonFlyer"Some interesting numbers - you can see the summary here https://www.duedil.com/company/07225208 ... financials I'd hope if Dr K does wish to buy it, then the current state can be used to drive a good bargain for the club.'" Why? Don't you think you, as a club have had enough of a "good bargain" so far?

Quote ="BartonFlyer"Some interesting numbers - you can see the summary here https://www.duedil.com/company/07225208 ... financials I'd hope if Dr K does wish to buy it, then the current state can be used to drive a good bargain for the club.'" Why? Don't you think you, as a club have had enough of a "good bargain" so far?

All clubs are businesses - we've had too long being poorly run, if there's a commercial advantage to be had then grab it - I see nothing wrong in that.

But then you wouldn't, as you have a vested interest? It doesn't make it right though, or are you really 'saying' that because you've had such a bad time that you'll make a grab for any opportunity?

Why should the council tax payers of Salford effectively subsidise your club?

For the same reason the nation subsidised the Olympics?

I think it's called democracy, if you don't like it, don't vote for it

Total nonsense. you're nothing like the Olympics

It's not democracy either, in fact it's the total opposite and if you must know I think that the vast majority of Salford's citizens wouldn't vote for it, now that would be democracy in action and you'd have to make a fair contribution

Conveniently skirted around the fact that there is still a company carrying the name of Salford in a CVA Owing some 4.5 million part of which is a loan which will take the council 25 years to get back interest free. Then another 5 years to repay others unfortunate enough to have traded with your club..........

Not ignoring it in the least marshy - read my words - "if there's a commercial advantage grab it!"

No-one forces anyone to trade with anyone else, it's unfortunate as a supplier if a customer fails but that's a harsh reality that happens. The creditors did not have to agree to the CVA, they took the collective view that it was better to get their money back over time rather than force a winding up and get nothing.

So many people are quick to point the finger at Salford RLFC, but let us just recap. WIlky had his own set up to build a stadium through Red City Developments, there is a financial crash and RCD goes tits up. Peel speak to the council for their own reasons, and I will not speculate what they are! Before too long a new Joint Venture Company, similar to the Wilky model with RCD is established. But this does not include the Rugby Club. The Council and Peel do their own due diligence and decide that they can make the JVC work and offer Salford Rugby Club a tenancy agreement. The rest is history as they say. Now the Council and Peel (the joint shareholders in the JVC) are faced with either doing nothing, which could lead to the JVC entering Administration. Or putting some more capital into the JVC to see it over, which is what they have done, or try and sell the stadium on.

The real issue lies not with the Rugby Club, but with the Council and Peel who decided between them they could design, build and operate a sports stadium, when neither organisation had any previous experience of doing so.

Salford RLFC had financial problems long before moving into the stadium, so the issue of entering administration or a CVA was always a possibility, Koukash has merely stepped in to the breach, and as the owner has a responsibility to look after the clubs interests, NOT the Councils, or Peels or the Stadium JVC's.

Simple really isn't it.