[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.

[quote="Wires71":2b4s7uh2]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.[/quote:2b4s7uh2] Fare doos. I misunderstood.

They have signed Chan on loan from Wigan.

[quote="karetaker":22gni59t]They have signed Chan on loan from Wigan.[/quote:22gni59t] I wouldn't be surprised if another player was going in the opposite direction, then. Given Willie Isa's retirement, which leaves Wigan lighter at second row and with a quota spot available, maybe Sam Stone?

[quote="Wires71":klsxh7eb] There are 16 working days to their first fixture against St Helens and Salford have not registered their players for the sustainability cap.[/quote:klsxh7eb] From what I've read here [url:klsxh7eb]https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/why-salford-red-devils-can-delay-player-sales-and-avoid-cap-restrictions/ar-AA1y2BcR?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=f64fe457817f4833eee65cf691f2c37d&ei=11[/url:klsxh7eb] Salford will only be able to register players up to their new cap limit of £1.2m. They've got a CC game against Midlands Hurricanes next week, so they'll be able to put out a weakened side. Once Super League starts, unless their situation changes i.e. a take-over is completed, they'll have to proceed with a £1.2m squad with the remainder of the players, presumably the highest earners, unavailable but still being paid. For the potential buyers - it's very much in their interests to run the clock down.

[quote="St Helens Wolf":277vcc3k]From what I've read here [url:277vcc3k]https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/why-salford-red-devils-can-delay-player-sales-and-avoid-cap-restrictions/ar-AA1y2BcR?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=f64fe457817f4833eee65cf691f2c37d&ei=11[/url:277vcc3k] Salford will only be able to register players up to their new cap limit of £1.2m. They've got a CC game against Midlands Hurricanes next week, so they'll be able to put out a weakened side. Once Super League starts, unless their situation changes i.e. a take-over is completed, they'll have to proceed with a £1.2m squad with the remainder of the players, presumably the highest earners, unavailable but still being paid. For the potential buyers - it's very much in their interests to run the clock down.[/quote:277vcc3k] Thanks. Yes that is my understanding. What I don't agree with is the RFL giving opportunity for this uncertainty and delay. Salford should be told, in no uncertain terms, to register their players on the £1.2M cap [b:277vcc3k][i:277vcc3k]immediately[/i:277vcc3k][/b:277vcc3k]. If a new buyer comes in - then that's fine, good for Salford. But for the 2025 season the cap is £1.2M. [i:277vcc3k]But rival clubs and supporters have asked why the club haven’t been ordered to follow up on the claim they have to sell players ‘without delay’. The Rugby Football League’s chief executive, Tony Sutton, even admitted at last week’s Championship launch that the ball is in Salford’s court. [/i:277vcc3k] This is ineptitude by the RFL to lose control of this situation having made the advance of £500K.

It's possibly the worst situation. It doesn't reduce the club's actual spend, as they are still paying their players to sit on the side-lines, whilst hurting the fans, and in turn gate receipts, by fielding an uncompetitive team.

[quote="St Helens Wolf":15hrqzyb]It's possibly the worst situation. It doesn't reduce the club's actual spend, as they are still paying their players to sit on the side-lines, whilst hurting the fans, and in turn gate receipts, by fielding an uncompetitive team.[/quote:15hrqzyb] Salford aren`t in a position to leave their top players on the side-lines and still pay their salaries. They would have to allow them go elsewhere and if it happened, I doubt any other club would pay anything other than a very modest transfer fee which would be tantamount to a free transfer.

[quote="St Helens Wolf":2ro37tgc]It's possibly the worst situation. It doesn't reduce the club's actual spend, as they are still paying their players to sit on the side-lines, whilst hurting the fans, and in turn gate receipts, by fielding an uncompetitive team.[/quote:2ro37tgc] That's a very Salford centric view though. The alternative is we have all this uncertainty and drama days ahead of the new season affecting all the other 11 clubs. Salford knew this was coming from November last year when it was made clear their bailout from Salford council wasn't forthcoming. They have struggled financially for decades. Truth is they haven't the means to be a SL club.

Maybe a solution for the ineptitude as a one off would be for the RFL to take over the players surplus to Salford in a player pool & hire them out to Salford if needed or to other clubs on a weekly or monthly basis then any take over at Salford could compensate the RFL expenses for this season.