Looks like it was a rent cut and possible new investment - rlhttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/rugby_league/4358461/Salford-City-Reds-in-rent-cut-boost.html?utm_medium

Got to be good news I suppose.

According to the sun the exciting news we have been awaiting is that the stadium rent has been cut, whilst there are also several parties supposedly interested in investing in the club More worrying though is the fact it is mentioned we may not have been able to compete in super league next season had the rent not been cut...also, the RFL knew about it yet decided not to do anything about it Full story: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... boost.html

According to the sun the exciting news we have been awaiting is that the stadium rent has been cut, whilst there are also several parties supposedly interested in investing in the club More worrying though is the fact it is mentioned we may not have been able to compete in super league next season had the rent not been cut...also, the RFL knew about it yet decided not to do anything about it Full story: www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... boost.html

The rent cut has to be good news, and I'm sure it wouldn't have happened without the Sale rugby union stadium sharing arrangement.

I think this shows what a really dumb deal the club was given in the first place. If it's right (and it seems to be pure speculation at this point) that we would not have been able to compete in SL next season if the rent hadn't been cut then the commercial people that imposed the deal on the club in the first place needs to have a word with themselves about commercial viability (and I say imposed because we were hardly in a position to negotiate now were we?)

In short, it's bonkers to put your anchor tenant on a lease deal that financially cripples it, leads to it potentially losing its elite status and any chance of maximising revenues back to your stadium in future years. If the Sale deal has alleviated the pressure then it leaves me wondering what would have happened if they had not opted to move to Barton? I guess the answer is that the Council and Peel would have been left with a shiny new stadium and eventually no professional sports team playing in it had the deal that was in place been left as it was. My point is that it should never have been like that in the first place.

I think the club was put in a tough position by the RFL. Don't build the stadium and lose the franchise or move to Barton and take the extra costs assosiated with a new stadium. I'm sure projections were based on higher attendances and as we all know they haven't materialised. Does this surprise me? No

Do the club employ the wrong person/ people to sell the club or is it down to the economic climate? Or is it a mixture of both and the team underperforming until recently?

For many years the main defence was the facilities at Weaste and this cannot be hidden behind anymore. The club does not have the burden of running a stadium anymore and they only have three things to sell, tickets, hospitality and merchandise. I am sure that human resourses are the same so it begs the question of how effective they are at this now after several months of selling a much better facility and dedicating no time anymore to stadium management?

OK mindful of this once in a lifetime recession, but I think any Salford supporter is entitled to ask these questions.

As a Salford supporter I'd be asking who negotiated the terms that appears to how almost seen the club go under? Yet more inept decision making from the powers that be.

A forced hand I think. What was the other alternative? NL1 at Sedgley Park and fading into obscurity?

The terms offered would have been based on the stadium management company having a single tenancy agreement. (Worse case scenario) Anyone who thinks the SMC were not actively looking for another tennant is deluded. I'm absolutely convinced the SMC will have had contingencies for this situation.

Fading into obscurity at the Willows or going to the wall at Barton? I agree that it will have been a tough choice and possibly a forced hand. However - with the time all interested parties had to look at the ground development, business plans and so on, it makes you wonder just how it was allowed to get to such a sad state of affairs in the first place. How could a stadium be built and tenants placed in on what was seemingly such a knife-edge of a business plan? How much room might the club have had to argue that the deal being signed could well have seen us become non-viable for Super League? As stated previously, possibly not a lot.

It does seem that someone, somewhere, has made a right mess of things, be it someone on the council, Peel or Salford. I guess we'll never know just where to point the finger.

If the the reports are true and we needed this reduction in rent to survive beyond this season then that for me again highlights that the men at the top haven't got a clue as we should have never been put in that position in the first place. We need investment badly and without it I honestly hand on heart feel that we won't be in the top flight of RL for much longer.

It's well and good having a reduction in rent, but lets not get our hopes up too much. There is still a long way to go and we're just about keeping our heads above water. Without some serious investment next years squad is going to be a lot weaker than what we have this year because we'll have far less to spend on the squad and we're already probably running on the lowest salary cap which is worrying. PV comments in the press to me confirm this "we will be looking around the globe for value players" to me it translates into "We have no money and will have to get players no body else wants because we don't have a choice"!!! If that's the case then how are we meant to win games and get people through the turnstiles? Meaning we'll yet again have low crowds and no money, I hope to god I'm wrong and we can survive, but the financial messages we're getting out of the press aren't good at all IMO.

I just hope we can carry on playing well this season and keep challenging for the 8 so we can build up some interest and I can try and hold onto some positivity.

You have hit the nail on the head! I think there has been about 3 people at Salford who have dug deep in the past 35 years. Other businessmen have done what they can but the club needs new money and new direction.

Slightly contradictory points. I know it's great fun to point blame but if there's no money left, what are the 'men at the top' supposed to do? Print some??

As for surviving much longer - again, we've only those clueless 'men at the top' to thank that we've hung on this long. Or would you put that down to 'fan power'?

Enough doom mongering anyway - we've got an online shop now, we'll be back in the black in no time!

I think the point being made is that, at some point along the build, negotiations and so on, it seems like we've been shafted. That's not a position we should have been in, but the "men at the top" that have ultimately got us there could be involved with Salford, Peel or the council. Or do you not see a problem in us moving into a stadium with a business plan that we now know was taking us backwards?

Backwards? We were on the brink at the Willows, we're on the brink now.
The only significant difference is that we've got a pretty stadium to be skint in. I'd call it progress. How scary is that!?


A point I've been making for years without taking side-swipes at those currently pulling the strings.