[quote="Tony Fax":2eimuljf]Rugby League is slowly dying, Salford will be the next SL club to go bust and when you have McManus at Saints saying they'll have to cut costs (he's fed up of throwing money into a deep pit) then you know there's problems. Will all come to a head when SKY offers a pittance in the next renewal. As for the championship, it's only a matter of time before everything falls apart. Crowds decreasing and interest waning. Using myself as a yard stick I not at all excited about the start of the new season ..... I don't care! There was an article by Chris Foy in the Daily Mail a few months back about Union and League merging ...... it makes sense, Union is much more watchable than it used to be and I actually enjoy watching Union highlights on the telly.[/quote:2eimuljf] [i:2eimuljf] In his latest ‘Talking Rugby League’ column, League Express editor MARTYN SADLER suggests that long-term strategic thinking is needed by Super League club owners in their approach to the liquidity crisis at Salford Red Devils. IS Salford the canary in the coal mine? The Super League club owners will meet on Tuesday and their reaction to the crisis at Salford Red Devils could tell us a lot about whether Super League has a viable future. The liquidity crisis at Salford is merely a symptom of what is happening across Super League, whose clubs lost many millions collectively during 2024. I’m told that Salford’s losses were apparently lower than those of any other club in the competition, with one owner, for example, having had to put £4 million into his club to keep it operating. The eleven clubs other than Salford are fortunate that they have owners who can do this, but I’m sure that Hull FC would have been in the same position as Salford if new investors hadn’t turned up in the nick of time. And if any or all of the existing owners were to walk away, then Super League would be in an awful mess. Salford were last week urged by the RFL to offload their leading players to other clubs, ideally for substantial transfer fees that would help reduce their deficit, while they are also being urged to cut their costs as a whole to the bone, which would clearly make them uncompetitive as a Super League team. Rugby League’s business model clearly doesn’t work and it needs urgent surgery to transform itself into a model that is sustainable and can secure stability and then growth. Unfortunately I see no sign of the current leadership of the game being able to achieve that aim. The danger is that the competition will weaken and the dominoes will begin to topple one by one. The club owners getting together is an encouraging sign, but only if they make the right decisions. And the key principle they have to follow is that the competition itself has greater value and importance than any of the individual clubs. If we see the other clubs swooping to sign Salford players, thereby fatally weakening the Red Devils and reducing the club to being a passenger in the 2025 season, then I’m afraid there is little hope for the game. With a new broadcasting agreement due to begin in 2027, the demise of Salford will significantly reduce the value of those rights, as we have seen with Premiership rugby union after it lost three clubs and was reduced to a ten-team competition. So if that isn’t to happen and the value of the competition is to be protected, then the clubs have to take control of the situation by becoming far more creative in shoring up its weakest links. What that means is that they have to combine their resources to protect Salford’s position in Super League so that the Red Devils can retain their current squad and be competitive. I understand that the Red Devils are in discussions with an Australian consortium that is seeking to buy the club. I’m not sure if and when that deal will be completed, but the other Super League clubs need to effectively provide Salford with a bridging loan from their own resources to tide them over until that deal is completed and, if it isn’t completed, until the end of the season. The other clubs have some very wealthy owners who must realise that the value of their own clubs depends on the value of Super League as a whole and they therefore need Salford to not just survive but thrive. To raise, say, £1 million between them as private individuals on a relatively short-term basis shouldn’t be too difficult. They are all successful businessmen and they should realise that this would be the best way forward. If they don’t, and they put their own clubs’ short-term interests ahead of the long-term interests of the Super League competition, then I’m afraid that Super League doesn’t have much of a future.[/i:2eimuljf]

[quote="Listenup94":2ktx096h]Maybe he'll turn the skircoat stand into an old people's home and a crematorium.[/quote:2ktx096h] I'd be first to sign up..

[quote="Listenup94":1fyqeg36]Maybe he'll turn the skircoat stand into an old people's home and a crematorium.[/quote:1fyqeg36] Or thinking of the reputation of the rugby club maybe dig the pitch up as required. Davy could be first with a little sign saying “please keep off the Ken.”

[quote="faxcar":1ma7tmza]Or thinking of the reputation of the rugby club maybe dig the pitch up as required. Davy could be first with a little sign saying “please keep off the Ken.” [/quote:1ma7tmza] He'd be turning in his grave , literally .

[quote="faxcar":6vp0u9un] You mentioned Ken Davy and history that upset some Huddersfield Town fans. Do you know the full circumstances and details of what the issue was, do you know his side of the argument? It’s just that looking at our own history as a rugby club just taking FC Town Shaymen fans assessment would hardly be the place to get a fair and accurate view. On the other hand what we actually do know the last time I looked Huddersfield Town were still in their stadium as majority share holders with the opportunity to become full owners and when Davy sold his shares they didn’t pay over the odds or get ripped of in anyway.[/quote:6vp0u9un] He moved the shares in the stadium company owned by Huddersfield Town to one of his companies (Huddersfield Sporting Pride Ltd) for a nominal fee of £1. His reasoning was to "safeguard" them for the future and would sell them back once the football club was stabilised. He kept them within his ownership, and after selling HTAFC to Dean Hoyle, then tried to sell the shares back for a lot more than the £1 he paid for them, presumably to recoup some of the money he'd spent on HTAFC. There was a lot of uproar in the town and he eventually transferred them back for the same rate I believe, But his reputation had gone from saviour to villain and while the current ownership at Huddersfield Town have no beef with him, many of the fans do.

[quote="Brew":29q8svwh]He moved the shares in the stadium company owned by Huddersfield Town to one of his companies (Huddersfield Sporting Pride Ltd) for a nominal fee of £1. His reasoning was to "safeguard" them for the future and would sell them back once the football club was stabilised. He kept them within his ownership, and after selling HTAFC to Dean Hoyle, then tried to sell the shares back for a lot more than the £1 he paid for them, presumably to recoup some of the money he'd spent on HTAFC. There was a lot of uproar in the town and he eventually transferred them back for the same rate I believe, But his reputation had gone from saviour to villain and while the current ownership at Huddersfield Town have no beef with him, many of the fans do.[/quote:29q8svwh] Being from Brighouse when I was younger, I and the group I associated with at the time were all Huddersfield Town fans and is pretty close to what I heard, overhaul though what he put into HTAFC was far more than he took out and there was never a time they were at any risk whilst he was involved. He might not even go through with it but if he doesn’t no one else with the resources to make a difference has or is coming forward so then what happens then because the council are desperate to get shut one way or another.