City Reds

Changing name ensures more crowds, just look at the successes in London

When the RFL start bailing them out and lying to the fans about the reasons for doing it, and then pleading with all and sundry to donate money to them then I'll start demanding the same as I demanded in the Bradford situation.

The RFL have "invested" £1.25m in Bradfords lease that could well ahve been spent elsewhere in the game and unless they get the same amount back when selling it back to ABC, or whoever else buys Bradford, then they have deprived the member clubs and fans of money that could have been invested at grassroots level.

Surely even the most blinkered Bradford fan can see there is a bit of a difference between the 2 situations??

Net Worth:

2010 - £-4,352,212
2009 - £-3,859,637
2008 - £-3,839,986
2007 - £-3,082,290
2006 - £-2,645,284

Net Worth = TOTAL assets less TOTAL liabilities

I said 1-2k, there are many RL fans in Swinton that used to watch the game on a weekly basis. When they left Swinton, they stopped watching. Although i understand they would never go and cheer on Salford I as one ex Swinton fan would probably go watch a game.

Regarding the other bloke that comments on a name change, ask London. I don't think you understand that the name Salford is not that well liked. London RL is a totally different ball game.

All is well in SL, and this franchising system has saved our game!

Now onto Blackpool.

Yeah i have to agree



Wood we have you still believe our game is thriving.

I remember during the world cup and i sent a few emails to the RFL saying what i cr@p job they were doing leading up to the event. I got an email saying before the event even started they were guaranteed so many millions profit because of how well they had organised it...........we all know how that ended!

Having a negative net worth doesnt make a company insolvent.They become insolvent if they are unable to pay their debts as and when due.

Goes back to what I was saying about living within our means, but some people are happy to continue sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "sugar daddy sugar daddy" over any such discussion.

Someone has copied the OP's post onto Salford's Facebook page and they've replied with the following. Apparently the OP is claiming to have family on the board.

As has already been pointed out, these figures mean nothing without deeper analysis. If the current liabilities are mainly additional funds injected by the directors/shareholders then they could be seen as quasi equity which would improve the negative net worth. Also, in such a case the directors/shareholders would want to do everything possible to keep the company afloat to give thm the best chance of getting their money back.

On the other hand, if the liabilities are just a mix of bank debt, trade creditors & HMRC then the clouds on the dark side of the hill will be looking very black indeed!

They need to rebrand as a Manchester team , i.e Manchester Reds and try and appeal to a wider audience.

Lowry Lynx

They could re locate to old trafford as a name change is certain to pull in Mancunians in their droves

Just imagine how much exposure St Helens RFC would get if they would rebrand themselves to Liverpool Saints, eh?

funny...I don't remember hacking your account and posting that.

Economic nonsense. If a club can afford to keep players in OUR sport then we should be encouraging them to do so. Dragging everybody down to the level of the clubs that can't get themselves any fans just rewards failure and leads to ever further decline. We can't get sponsors as it stands, how is losing the best players going to help? Far from the cap being too high, its the cap being too low ( for clubs with money ) that's caused the problem. Its blocked money out of the game.

Indeed - given nine of the 13 British SL clubs have negative net worths that would indeed be a problem; the average net worth is minus £94k. Exclude Warrington and Leeds and it is minus £2.4m. 12 of the 13 have net current liabilities, an average of £1.4m.

Every club other than Leeds is reliant on their owner for support; but this is a fact of life in almost every sport, certainly in the UK, and does not reflect positively or negatively on Rugby League in any particular way. In fact it is quite remarkable that such a small sport has so many very rich people willing to put so much money in - the most extreme examples being Ken Davy, the guys at St Helens and David Hughes. Quite how much John Wilkinson can be compared to those backers of rival clubs I'm not sure - and, like at Bradford, that might be Salford's big problem.

And yet Cas, Who own their own ground, And can maintain a suitable standard SL team, Losing less than most, Are been forced into busting a gut to get a new stadium, When the one they have is suitable for their needs. (Same goes for Wakefield)

The RFL are killing the game.

Salford aren't the only ones, Hull KR aren't far behind them, And the bottomless pit in London can't last forever.

Correct. I don't know if these fans of even lower salary caps genuinely don't mind league becoming a very very minor sport indeed or if they live in a fantasy world where we, uniquely, can be a top 4 or 5 sport in the UK without wealthy benefactors in the game. It ain't going to happen. If someone has the money to spend on things to boost the game...let them. And frankly, although people tend to always see high player expenses as a bad thing, you can make a strong case that buying say, Dan Carter, (heck, even Gavin Henson!) would generate more column inches, and therefore more sponsor interest, etc. for it to be a perfectly sound piece of business for the game as a whole. Our game has decided its too small fry for that to *ever* be something we'd do, and it pees me off that we're doomed to media mediocrity. At our media 'peak', Hanley, Offiah, etc. we were just starting to get somewhere against the bias, but now we're back (in fact behind) square one.

Maybe they should change it to Manchester Untied, see if they can trick a few dyslexic football fans into coming through the turnstyle.

The Cap is fine where it is.....it's the way clubs are run that is the problem.

Does anybody know how the Salary Cap looks now vs its introduction, in terms of inflation? Has it actually been devalued by inflation?

Cas aren't being forced into anything. If the stadium is suitable (it still has a wooden stand FFS) then they could improve other areas of the club to make their licence bid better.
Don't blame the RFL for your clubs' shortcomings. Cas had the option to spend money over the decades keeping Wheldon Road up to scratch, they chose not to.

Is the right answer.

The RFL aren't 'killing the game'. Some bad decisions over a period of years by club chairmen/BODs have caused problems.