I gained the impression last night that the stadium at Barton has a management team that lends itself to the other club that uses it,but not SCR.
I am aware that when the money from Thomas,at Leigh Centurions ceased,that club managed to reduce the charges,and even the price of beer was reduced,at the LSV.( I gained the impression no one from the club is in dialogue with the SMC at SCS.)
Personally,it wouldn't bother me if the club shared a stadium elsewhere - perhaps even at one of those so-called big soccer clubs that between them are hundreds of millions of pounds in debt but still manage to be at the top of the top league.
What alternatives are there - pre and post administration - should this occur ?

Would I be wrong to wish the white elephant onto the sole use of Peel Holdings and the council - will Sale remain should they be relegated ?

Would I be wrong to implore fans NOT to spend money at the stadium as it does not benefit SCR at all ? (Unless some merchandise arrives )

Could further improvements at the home of Salford FC be sufficient for Super League Licensing purposes ?

Does the contract signed for the SCS at Barton prevent any of the above ?

Apologies for my ignorance on these matters.

I agree with GT and i too think the business plan was based on 8,000. Ludicrous i know.

Just an aside on the 8k, I was talking to Andy Walsh from FC United about this the other day. Apparently the accepted percentage increase due to the "new ground" factor is 20%. If you look at the attendance figures (hit and miss with ours, I'll grant you) it's a 16% increase, if I remember rightly. So, if we'd factored sensibly on all of this we wouldn't actually be that far out. But, there you go.

Interesting.

I'd say 16% is pretty good considering how poor we were on the pitch. Would imagine the %age would be higher if we'd been more successful on the park.

Remember the spike in the attendances was mainly due to the away fans wanted to visit the new stadium, if we get the chance to start the new season with the team we have at present, attendances will be down on two fronts before we start. A) the novelty of away fans visiting. b) The home product on the pitch.

Thank you Ginge for confirming that the 8k was and always has been the quoted breakeven figure for SCR. The business plan was clearly flawed much to the detriment of your club.
The difficulty is now attracting the additional spectators required on the back of all the clubs problems.

True.

The winding up petition is heard on Jan 7th.

Patten is £30k & Anderson £20k.

What is the HMRC debt please? Anybody know?

Also has any other creditor joined the claim?

I think the HMRC debt was somewhere in the region of £250 - £300,000. No other creditors appear to have joined the petition yet.

Thanks RedJohn

HMRC amount was stated as £350k at the end of the meeting. I think I misheard the Patten and Anderson amounts because I noted it down as £27k to Patten and £31k to Anderson - but at the hearing last month Patten was put down as the one owed the most. So it was either £37k and £31k or £27k and £21k.

We could barely understand what was being said from where we were sat. [ very frustrating ] What was JW saying about IKEA and the new road ?

Think people reading too much on the 8000 attendance , I believe the new business plan is based on last seasons income levels, hence that is why the playing budget + the expenditure budgets have been cut to make sure the future business plan is sustainable which has been verified by KPMG & Peels accountants. They realized Dave Tarrys pie in the sky business plan of 8000 wouldn't work.

That should've been made a bit more clear, then, instead of saying "we've got a viable business plan if we get 8,000 people through the gate."

I didn't hear them say that. I thought they said they had a viable business plan based on reduced income, which implied a smaller gate.