As I posted on Facebook.



People can argue that they should have gone about it in the correct and not underhand like they seem to have done, but ah well sh*t happens.

Let’s just for a moment suppose Salford RLFC didn’t received the loan from the council and we went under, then all the previous loans/money they have lent to us/put into the stadium would have been wasted, this way ensured Salford survived and ensured the councils investment was/still is worthwhile.

It may appear a little unorthodox,but with the 164k stated as being the amount involved by the end of this campaign,it should be remembered that more than that has gone to the stadium company rlHererl

I don't think too much money will be saved by the council/council tax payers if the recommendations incorporated into the report are put into place The authors of the internal report have now recommended that in future, the council’s monitoring officer should be a trained solicitor with no other management posts and for early severance packages to be formally signed. It also urges senior officers sign an agreement, potentially restricting their next employment.[/i

rlSourcerl

Bit of a mess.Should have paid the same service to the Licensing regulations as Castleford did - It ain't dun them no harm !

Seems to me the individuals behind Licensing have now moved on from the RFL and those involved in this stadium at it's beginning have also moved on,leaving other to try and make the best of a bad job.

Yes, quite right, then your old Club wouldn't have wasted all its own money building a new stadium......you, sorry they, could have then redeveloped The Willows.

Do you have some sort of alarm going off whenever this topic comes up?

Ha ha not really and I did wonder whether to post as 'we' had seemed to be getting along better recently now that things at your end had appeared to have settled down and rugby was the order of the day as far as discussion was concerned.

In the end if true it's not really been that much of a secret, but, thought I'd bite at the previous poster who seemed to be suggesting that you'd be better off at the Willows or if you'd not been forced to comply with licensing whereas Cas the shirkers were successful on the pitch because they hadn't bothered or perhaps I'm having a two plus two equals five moment?

It was a bit tongue in cheek to be honest, I'd learned my lesson last time round that it's not you the fans, you the new club etc etc

BTW on matters Rugby I wish you were more certain of the 8, as it might have meant we had beaten Widnes and Wakefield to give you a leg up

Hah, I may have been being slightly tongue in cheek myself.

(and if we're being honest, if true this sort of shady dealing is pretty indefensible really)

Without a tenant there is no income anyway is there?

The real `return` will be next season & beyond - so as Ave It implies maybe the `deal` wasnt too bad after all.

That may indeed be true EB, but, there is a chicken and egg argument here, without a tenant would there be any need for an income? Also it can't be claimed that it's not been part of some master plan. You could have ridden out the licensing nonsense at The Willows, the City and Peel wouldn't have stumped up the cash for The Sharks surely? I accept that if your new owner was part of the negotiation to move and develop the stadium then no doubt it would have been more successful for all parties.

Hey ho, all things are better with the benefit of hindsight, we are where we are and the mood should be justifiably onwards and upwards as far as rugby is concerned. Despite my record on this subject I'm prepared to move on it's an old story and as long as lessons have been learned.

Truth be known I have more of a problem with the Council, all sides of it including Stewart, Lancaster and Garrido (sp?) than I do with your Club. Of course they should operate with agendas, I'm not fully convinced that they know what their agendas are for any particular length of time and it all seems well a bit amateur really.

When they commence the sale of the land around the stadium (Greene King already signed up) then the Stadium Company will get an enormous return on investment and Ms Garrido will have to find something else to moan about.

How will the Stadium Company benefit, surely Peel will be the beneficiaries of any capital receipts from the sale of this land, or do believe that the Stadium Company actually own the pub plot?

You're definitely correct about Mrs Garrido though, I've never heard a good word about anything from her on any subject

I'd much prefer to read she has thrown in the towel and she is to become a hermit on Bouvet Island.

My understanding is the immediate surrounding area, 50 acres I believe, is owned by the Stadium Company (are they called Cozcoz?) return is £25m for the public coffers over the next year or two.

As for Ms Garrido I can only assume she is a closet Cas supporter such is her vitriol on all matters SRD.

We had a charmed life with Salford Council and they were lucky that the Doctor came in otherwise the political fallout would have been far greater,if the whole thing had gone tits up.
Benefit of hindsight it was a brave call,indefensible as someone rightly said, but it has helped with the regeneration project ,so all's well that ends well.

rlSlightly More - To An Individual - Different Response - Indefensible Or Not?rl