They have finally come to terms with their financial position :- https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/sa ... r-revealed

They have finally come to terms with their financial position :- https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/sa ... r-revealed

Salary Cap dispensation for clubs to sign Salford players being requested by Leeds:- https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... st-4951555 If this happens, then the Sneyd to Wire rumour might have legs?

Salary Cap dispensation for clubs to sign Salford players being requested by Leeds:- https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/ ... st-4951555 If this happens, then the Sneyd to Wire rumour might have legs?

[quote="just_browny":3prxqszn]What could they have done to help Salford's financial viability? I think there have been governance failings here, but they've all been about letting Salford off the hook for some pretty weak excuses and promises that a takeover deal / funding were just around the corner. It's not the RFL's job to run Salford for them and they don't have the money to do that even if they wanted to.[/quote:3prxqszn] It's exactly a failure of governance - and a big one. The RFL have allowed a team, with known long standing financial troubles, to enter SL 2025 that has insufficient funds to continue trading requiring an immediate bail out of £0.5M. The perilous situation was known to the Salford board in November 2024 when another grant of taxpayers money was not given to Salford. The financial woes of Salford date back decades. Here in 2014 we see another bail out from the tax payer. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... er-6917045 There is no excuse for the RFL not to keep Salford under a close watch. Even now, with the latest crisis known, indecisiveness continues in the hope that a due diligence and completion of a last minute take over deal can be performed in the 3 weeks before the season kicks off. The sale of players should have started last week, and if Salford lose every game of 2025 due to a weak squad - so be it. As UR says, this is affecting all the other clubs and the image of the game. It's clear that Salford does not have the financial means to be a SL club.

[quote="just_browny":3prxqszn]What could they have done to help Salford's financial viability? I think there have been governance failings here, but they've all been about letting Salford off the hook for some pretty weak excuses and promises that a takeover deal / funding were just around the corner. It's not the RFL's job to run Salford for them and they don't have the money to do that even if they wanted to.[/quote:3prxqszn] It's exactly a failure of governance - and a big one. The RFL have allowed a team, with known long standing financial troubles, to enter SL 2025 that has insufficient funds to continue trading requiring an immediate bail out of £0.5M. The perilous situation was known to the Salford board in November 2024 when another grant of taxpayers money was not given to Salford. The financial woes of Salford date back decades. Here in 2014 we see another bail out from the tax payer. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... er-6917045 There is no excuse for the RFL not to keep Salford under a close watch. Even now, with the latest crisis known, indecisiveness continues in the hope that a due diligence and completion of a last minute take over deal can be performed in the 3 weeks before the season kicks off. The sale of players should have started last week, and if Salford lose every game of 2025 due to a weak squad - so be it. As UR says, this is affecting all the other clubs and the image of the game. It's clear that Salford does not have the financial means to be a SL club.

[quote="just_browny":3qalvx7m]OK so I think I'm agreeing with everyone then. I thought the post I was replying to suggested the RFL should have been propping Salford up more than they have. I agree it has gone on far too long and either: (1) the IMG process should have picked up on the issues, or (2) once Salford asked for cash in advance, what they put forward to the IMG process should have been binned off and someone else offered the place in SL.[/quote:3qalvx7m] 1) Yes, definitely. Instead they got a B rating 13.97, rank #12. 2) Agree. But worst still it seems the bailout was provided (with RFL Commercial having control of it) but no timeline for execution of the sustainability cap*. Hence Salford can continue to dally in the hope of this takeover, leaving the whole thing in limbo. Salford have been tricksy since the get go. * https://www.salfordreddevils.com/club-s ... e-rumours/[i:3qalvx7m] The terms of receiving the advancement were that the Club be placed under ‘special measures’ requiring a reduction in overheads of £800,000. [b:3qalvx7m]We were not given a clear timeline for compliance on required expenditure reductions[/b:3qalvx7m], therefore the Club took the decision to hold our position for the short-term while investor negotiations are ongoing. During this time the Club has received offers for a number of players, none of whom have been available for sale until today. [/i:3qalvx7m]

[quote="just_browny":3qalvx7m]OK so I think I'm agreeing with everyone then. I thought the post I was replying to suggested the RFL should have been propping Salford up more than they have. I agree it has gone on far too long and either: (1) the IMG process should have picked up on the issues, or (2) once Salford asked for cash in advance, what they put forward to the IMG process should have been binned off and someone else offered the place in SL.[/quote:3qalvx7m] 1) Yes, definitely. Instead they got a B rating 13.97, rank #12. 2) Agree. But worst still it seems the bailout was provided (with RFL Commercial having control of it) but no timeline for execution of the sustainability cap*. Hence Salford can continue to dally in the hope of this takeover, leaving the whole thing in limbo. Salford have been tricksy since the get go. * https://www.salfordreddevils.com/club-s ... e-rumours/[i:3qalvx7m] The terms of receiving the advancement were that the Club be placed under ‘special measures’ requiring a reduction in overheads of £800,000. [b:3qalvx7m]We were not given a clear timeline for compliance on required expenditure reductions[/b:3qalvx7m], therefore the Club took the decision to hold our position for the short-term while investor negotiations are ongoing. During this time the Club has received offers for a number of players, none of whom have been available for sale until today. [/i:3qalvx7m]