news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 427846.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 427846.stm

Could be good news, but could be VERY dangerous. Union clubs are poaching our players anyway. Sharing a ground might just make it even easier for them to take our players. I'd rather we didn't have to share but if needs must...(although I'd rather it be a football team who we aren't in so much competition with)

I'm sure that both Peel and Salford Council would welcome the extra rent to come their way. You could argue they would be stupid to refuse it. My one concern would be if Sale try and purchase the ground ( would that be a possible scenario?) and then we are no longer in a stadium with a peppercorn rent and would be at Sales beck and call as they would become the main occupier.

I think it could also be good and if played right, you men could attract a new set of fans (also true for the Sale side).

For me, with the right marketing, this proposed share could work.

Wouldn't like to be the groundsman tho, imagine the pitch!!!!

From what I've read / heard most fans on either side don't want it so it could do more harm than good if we're forced together. Having said that it wasn't that long ago we we're told that Sale wouldn't be welcome by senior people involved.

Anyway, if Sale do come can we get Trafford Council to foot some of the construction cost paid out by Salford residents to cover putting up their club?

I agree with the point made about only playing 15 games a year in a stadium, it just isn't enough.(Used about 4% of a year) If you consider football clubs can play twice that figure it brings in so much more revenue towards the stadium running costs. Sometimes I wonder if RL teams don't play enough fixtures? Or if it's to done to make it more practical for rugby clubs to share with football clubs. For instance if a football club has say 25-30 home fixtures and then if a rugby team had say 22 games it would probably be too much for the pitch. I know people keep harping on about rugby players having too many games but it's a load of tosh that, isn't that what having a squad of 25 players is all about? What is wrong with squad rotation?

It's certainly seems to suit the bigger clubs more like Wigan, Leeds, Hull and Huddersfield who share the stadium costs with another tennent. Probably the shared rental cost compensates them for only playing 15 home games?

Would be good to get United 2nd team in the ground. I can't see sale working.

No thanks

Of course it makes sense - just as long as we have control.

i think we actually need to look past the groundshare and what the implications are going down the line. Could we see a parent company being setup like we have with Leeds and quins? It certainly would seem what would be the next logical step from a business sense that that might be where this goes.

Remember these people see this as a business. Yes JW is a Salford fan through and through but what about when he does pull out? You would get the Sale management suddenly interested as they then take ownership of both clubs and can dictate as they see fit. What then? a Manchester club? Manchester RL and Manchester RU? it's certainly something that makes you think doesn't it? Both codes would relish having a name like that in their respective competitions no matter how much we as reds dont like the idea.

The other thing is, are Salford having their hand forced by Peel? JW was certainly against this not that long ago so why the sudden turn around?

lot more questions for me that i dont think i will like the answer too than "Sale just ground sharing"

Noooo!
Of all the gambles to take with groundshare this is by far the most dangerous.

a Maanchester teams football reserves games preferred if any.

Leeds Rhino's get away with it because they are the dominant name and both clubs are run by the Caddicks / Hetherington .

We would be swallowed up by such a deal sorry but true .

My only guess is it's going to happen and this is an attempt to spin an' it was our idea' story ..

i dont see the problem in it? why would we lose out? probably gain a few extra fans from sale and maybe a few salford fans would go and watch the sharks?

Let's face it as tenants our club won't get a say in who else gets to use the stadium. If sale are willing to pay a decent rent then true peel/council run stadium will welcome them with open arms. The council especially would be more than happy to have an extra income bearing in mind the cuts they are having to make.

We'd lose out if sale decided to buy the stadium out right. It'd be the death of salford as a top flight rugby club.

why would they? plus why would the council sell it? its a community stadium?

Union insists on primacy of Tenure, so you would be at the beck and call of the Union club.

[uPotential gains:[/u
a handful of extra fans
a little extra revenue

[uPotential losses:[/u
players
fans
money
a stadium to play in
a Super League licence

Not worth the risk IMO. Union is stealing our players and we just give them a ground where we play?! Besides, I can't see what a Manchester Union team would do for the Salford Community in the Salford Community Stadium.

Great news, rugby 12 months of the year, get real 3000 would have never supported the ground, long-term gain, joint season tickets, cross party support I for look forward to it.

that was along the lines of my thinking.

My thoughts as posted on the V.T earlier today.

To be fair, I'm not sure what Wilky is doing saying that as it's nothing to do with him (ultimately) as SRLFC don't own the ground, that's down to the Joint venture Company / Management, Salford City Council & Peel Holdings, it's their decision at the end of the day. However (and I say this as a Liverpool fan) from a personal view I'd rather have MUFC reserves playing there, it could help to build a link between Salford & Utd that could be very beneficial in the long run (Sponsorship etc), but like I say that's just my view, oh and besides most of the comments from Sale fans I've read haven't been to enthusiastic about the whole thing so much so many say they wouldn't attend!

Hope this is a none starter! We have a chance here to establish ourselves as the region's premier rugby club. If we are playing infront of 12,000 crowds with 8k s/t holders the issue of the service charge will be less relevant. Instead of trying to get more games in the ground, lets fill the ones we already have! 15/16 full houses is worth more than 30 games with 5k average attendances

On an aside does 12k actual meet RU Premiership criteria? Dont the RU insist on lead tenure?

Its all well and good pointing out successful groundsharing examples but these are all based on relationships with football clubs. In the case of a 'rugby' club, a senior partner always emerges e.g. Quins RU and Leeds Rhinos. I for one dont want to run the risk of being swallowed up by Sale and have our aspirations smoothered at birth.

KOTS point on MUFC and the link to a fan base and corporate market is very important and should be explored further

Got to be honest I would have to think hard about putting money into the Councils pockets if they allowed Football to be played at the stadium. For me I have always said it makes perfect sense to make it a rugby stadium and allow as much cross promotion, training and marketing as possible between Salford and Sale.

I have been banging on for years that we should do a deal with Untied and city so that season ticket holders from them clubs could attend Salford games for half price, it may or may not bring more in, a lot of fans I go with wouldn't watch "egg-chasers" but than again there are about 15000 manchester postcode season ticket holders from both clubs if a third of these turned up thats 50k extra cash per match even 10% of these coming would put 1500 on the gate.

Shouldn't the club make information like who we share the ground with knowledge before they can sell the 5 year season tickets?.

Why , it isn't your ground , so why would it be the concern of Salford who plays there ?