Letting the sharks in would spell disaster for the Reds, they are parasites of the worst kind. Poor relations here we come. If you don't know what a Sale shark looks like check this out... www.environmentalgraffiti.com/fe ... orms/10497 I sincerely hope this rumpour uis just a rumour and it does not happen.

Letting the sharks in would spell disaster for the Reds, they are parasites of the worst kind. Poor relations here we come. If you don't know what a Sale shark looks like check this out... www.environmentalgraffiti.com/fe ... orms/10497 I sincerely hope this rumpour uis just a rumour and it does not happen.

I'd start off with a tiddlywinks competition I may even think of a thousand ways but what the hell has it got to do with you anyone with half a brain cell could think of ideas, (I'm sure there are plenty in place) putting them into practice is where it counts and I don't recall stating I would?

What I did state is I would not want Sale RU anywhere near the stadium which was built in its first instance as home to Salford City Reds! Think before you respond to anything I write next time

Head. Nail. On.

Can only assume the poster means a lower shared rent.

Forgetting Sale for a minute, I think what you have to consider here is that it's surely in the council and peel's interests that Salford are more succesful at Barton than the Willows. If Salford have the burden of higher rent initially then this will be less to spend on the team. The stronger the team is in the longer term with hopefully improved crowds the more potential for the stadium management company to make more money further down the line.

The concern comes if Kennedy sells Edgeley Park and from that is able to buy a controlling share in the CoS Stadium, and is then able to whack the rent up as he sees fit, as Stockport are finding out.

You're assuming our rent would be lower due to the ground being shared. It wouldn't surprise me if that had no effect on it whatsoever, but I could just be being overly cynical.

And that is where my concern lies. Hopefully the coucil wouldn't allow this to happen, but that is he inherent concern I have. I can live with them sharing a stadium, but I fear for us being at Kennedy's mercy.

I think Mr Kennedy has learned the hard way from buying a stadium and infuriating the other tenants. He's become extremely unpopular in Stockport and I think this is one of the main reasons Sale are looking to move.



Like I said the Council and Peel will not want this to fail. Is it worth trying to really maximise early profits for the sake of the longer term potential?

Even the alternative is that Kennedy buys the stadium, leaves the rent the same but then takes all the income from the catering and hospitality etc (though will Salford see much of that anyway?)

I agree with you. I book a pitch at the Soccerdome every week, the price does not go down if someone else uses the pitch when I'm not there. As a succesful business, Peel would be mental to lower our rates because Kennedy's lot are there.

We're over a barrell, we're moving in, rates agreed (I assume) etc. If anything, the negotiation upper hand when it comes to rates, hospitality profit share etc belongs to Kennedy.

i would love to know what deal salford get from staidum.

For example, what proportion of ticket sales/drinks/corporate etc we get to keep.

Also, how much the rent is and how this compares to the costs of running the willows.

Surely, whatever we're paying at COS, MUST be less than the willows else it wouldnt be benficial moving.


The one thing that worries me about sale moving in, is that it could be known as 'sales stadium' whereas we want it to be known as salfords ground/......hence attracting more people to come and watch us...not sale. hopefully our markting team can pull their finger out and get a good campaign going in our first year in staidum

It goes way beyond just charging a team to play there. The more activity at the stadium the more profit will be made from naming rights, advertising and providing food & drink. Sale won't want to come and pay full rent as a sole tenant would, they'll have weighed it up and worked out a shared rent is more attractive to them.

Do you honestly think he gives a shiny one about how he's upset people in Stockport because I don't for one minute. The reason he's looking to move, from what I can gather, is purely financial - he wants more revenue from corporate "clients" and he can't get this at Stockport. Simple.

I agree the Sale would use these factors to get a lower "rent" and probably a higher share of profit from other concessions and hospitality.

However, how would this benefit Salford (which is all I'm bothered about). I may be wrong, but I'd assume that all rates, profit sharing etc has been signed off by all parties and I'm also assuming that this is for a set period of time.