[quote="rubber duckie":9d9bgke1]Makes the NRL template even more appealing. Invest in the clubs so they are all solvent, then expand a new team in and back it to the hilt, until they too are successful in support and sponsorship. I find it almost embarrassing that SL only have 12 teams. And half of them are from just 3 districts. We would find greater national interest if we were hitting 18/20 strong teams.[/quote:9d9bgke1] Indeed. The RFL has failed spectacularly in it's attempts to create a top tier expansion side for a variety of reasons. Older readers may remember Kent Invicta, Fulham et al in the 80's. They got close with Gateshead Thunder (which was sacrificed on the altar of Hull FC) and Celtic Crusaders. Toronto was always a ridiculous idea. Catalans Dragons is not an expansion side as it was the merger of two existing sides XIII Catalan (1934) and Saint-Estève (1965). Perhaps with NRL investment, established clubs such as the following could be introduced with ample notice and funding. London Broncos York Sheffield Eagles North Wales Crusaders Newcastle Thunder

[quote="Wires71":2w3q2phr]I blame them for making signings they cannot afford and persistently going cap in hand to Salford City council for tax payers money.[/quote:2w3q2phr] Indeed, but "blame" is a peculiar word in the sense of how I used it as I think that their pre Season arrangements probably involved a bit of 'cloak and dagger' to protect the Club and the potential takeover by giving the appearance of business as usual. I think they actually stated that some of the financials were based on ongoing unsecured income. It's well documented that they have been trying to get more income from the Stadium deal and would suggest that dealing with a local authority might not have gone as smoothly and quickly as the Club would have wanted due diligence, democracy and all that allied with their poor track record and a complex situation with redevelopment proposals for the stadium hinterland. They should have known this I'd suspect they have regulars at Swinton Town Hall The compulsion is not for the Club to turn themselves in, but for the governing body to do their due diligence, they should've been taken to task at the time as we've all agreed and if they have been found to have misrepresented accounts then future sanctions and consequences wouldn't be unreasonable. Having said all that, given the timing I hope it all works out and we can get on with the rugby.

[quote="Uncle Rico":1nopqbpe]Indeed, but "blame" is a peculiar word in the sense of how I used it as I think that their pre Season arrangements probably involved a bit of 'cloak and dagger' to protect the Club and the potential takeover by giving the appearance of business as usual. I think they actually stated that some of the financials were based on ongoing unsecured income. It's well documented that they have been trying to get more income from the Stadium deal and would suggest that dealing with a local authority might not have gone as smoothly and quickly as the Club would have wanted due diligence, democracy and all that allied with their poor track record and a complex situation with redevelopment proposals for the stadium hinterland. They should have known this I'd suspect they have regulars at Swinton Town Hall The compulsion is not for the Club to turn themselves in, but for the governing body to do their due diligence, they should've been taken to task at the time as we've all agreed and if they have been found to have misrepresented accounts then future sanctions and consequences wouldn't be unreasonable. Having said all that, given the timing I hope it all works out and we can get on with the rugby.[/quote:1nopqbpe] I agree. There are 16 working days to their first fixture against St Helens and Salford have not registered their players for the sustainability cap. The RFL appears to be sitting on it's hands. This is a very poor state of affairs. The only positive from it is that it has highlighted the IMG grading method as a farce.

[quote="Wires71":1gv90old] The only positive from it is that it has highlighted the IMG grading method as a farce.[/quote:1gv90old] But is it? Didn’t IMG had a much tougher grading? So much so you could probably count the SL teams on 2 fingers, and most certainly one hand, which would make an A grade. Wasn’t IMG pressured into watering down the strict formula from the RFL and self interest of the SL clubs? So do we point the finger at IMG or the RFL? IMG aren’t completely independent, when it’s the RFL that’s paying them. In IMG’s credit, even the cooler version of what was initially touted, has seen a reaction from SL clubs to drive up their standards. Salford seem an enigma to it.

[quote="rubber duckie":1tr7gkz7]But is it? Didn’t IMG had a much tougher grading? So much so you could probably count the SL teams on 2 fingers, and most certainly one hand, which would make an A grade. Wasn’t IMG pressured into watering down the strict formula from the RFL and self interest of the SL clubs? So do we point the finger at IMG or the RFL? IMG aren’t completely independent, when it’s the RFL that’s paying them. In IMG’s credit, even the cooler version of what was initially touted, has seen a reaction from SL clubs to drive up their standards. Salford seem an enigma to it.[/quote:1tr7gkz7] I said the IMG grading method. If it's grading clubs on the brink of bankruptcy as a 'B' then it's not fit for purpose.