A statement like that makes me wonder if you are Malcolm White with all the financial knowledge that caused the sale of Station Road? either that, or being deliberately mischievous

The NWBF is a commercially operated fund that lends to businesses who want loans in what is often called the 'equity gap'. This is where a business wants an expansion/growth loan but because equity investors tend to not operate below a £2 - £2.5m investment threshold there is a gap in the market where the NWBF sub-funds step in. Hence, the NWBF is a good source of investment finance for any business able to present a growth/expansion business case.

A business receiving a loan for "finance expansion" is very good news for the business!!!! so wonder not.

Wash your mouth out with soap sir.!! Malcolm White indeed.

Time will tell if your assumption is correct or not after all would the companies own bank not be the first port of call. I do accept that the lending criteria of most banks is extremely rigid but one wonders that if the business is financially sound then they wouldn't have a problem.

I do take on board your comments regarding the NWBF being a good source of investment but the "financial expansion " can cover a multitude of sins.

There is that mischevious side comming out again. lol

The NWBF terms can be preferential to those of the bank when it comes to expansion/investment loans as opposed to just a general working capital loan. The point being you go the bank generally formore short-term loans whereas for a longer term loan (investment) then you'd want equity finance which is genarally not available below £2m. A bank judges you on your ability to re-pay and charges interest accordingly (using a rediculously mechanical approach these days but that is another story!), investment monies are offered based on a risk based judgement of an ability to expand/grow the business often meaning the terms are better. That's partly what would make me think it a good thing if looking at the business as an outsider - an ability to obtain investment capital over general cash loans shows a longer term confidence by the funding provider - it also makes commercial sense to the recipient as the terms will be better.

as for "Finance expansion" in explanation marks again. I'm guessing you don't know the funding rules and criteria of NWBF and the sub-funds (and why would anyone really unless they've had to?!). They are restricted from what I would call 'cash-flow' deals due to the nature of the NWBF and the the financial instrument mechanisms that established it (which is what I worked on).

Back to the thread...

The fact that Salford are still going when the likes of Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, Widnes etc. have been through what they have over the years should give confidence to us that those running the club will do what uis right. It is a business - and hence, quite rightly it shouldnt be plastered all over our forums and we as just fans have no intrinsic 'right' to know the fine details. Being even more harsh - most of us wouldnt understand the fine details anyway! All this thread shows is that 'guessing' or 'insinuating' from scraps of information or even rumours is pointless.

I'm surprised this sort of poop stirring hadn't surfaced earlier, but we are a little over three weeks from the Franchise decision day so expect more.
Have a bit of faith.

I agree wholeheartedly that club business should be kept to the inner sanctum of the board room.

I do however draw your attention to your following quote "The fact that Salford are still going when the likes of Oldham, Rochdale, Swinton, Widnes etc. have been through what they have over the years should give confidence to us that those running the club will do what uis right" you are overlooking the fact that only last year Salford were bailed out by the council with a loan to assist day to day running of the club. So it seems as we all know that there are no Rugby clubs making money on a day to day basis.
It is enlightening to speak with someone who does however have o good reasoned knowledge of business matters.

not going to debate that as it's not something I know the details of and I doubt there are many that do. but what i would say is that a 'loan' is not always a 'bail out' if you have the confidence it can be repaid - that is something that makes a fundamental difference when looking to hand over any cash. Sad to say, but it is why i doubt Swinton could have been helped at the time of leaving Station Road - the liabilities as I understand them were in the £millions with the upkeep costs of Station Road itself (however historic) being a key part of the problem. Thankfully Salford have never been in such a bad position and the works done to the Willows over the years have at least kept it reasonable - the club never had such a huge liability hanging over it the way Station Road was to Swinton.

Same can be said for the Sheddings which was falling to bits when Salford went there in the last year before Superleague. The upkeep of 'traditional' grounds to meet modern H&S standards (never mind tastes of people coming to games) mean that they represent an ongoing drain on club monies with little upside. Hopefully, the move for Salford to Barton reduces that cost / liability. If Agecroft happens, Swinton too should be on a more even keel - just a pity that steps were not taken 20 years ago to sort it out.

Totally agree with you. The sad part about Station rd's demise is ofcourse the underhanded way in which the directors at the time dealt with the matter and for that matter the quietness of the council as of course McClean homes must have agreed planning permission long before the deal was struck.
Old stadia are of course difficult to manage and all to often the only remedy is a new one otherwise you end up nomadic or a long term tennant as both Swinton & Oldham have in rugby league and of course Belle Vue Aces following the demise of Hyde Rd.

To be honest john wilkinson has been very good to this club over the years and can not see him acting in any way to put club in a financial crisis the last thing in was adhere of the we were never taken in to any perilous position and he shrug moves has always kept the club and he as always kept us in a good position financially so people might be getting worked up over nothing. I have never known wilkinson not to put club first great chairman and as for new ground I am sure he got a good deal for the club

Very similar to the agreement we (Hull fc) have at the kc stadium.

Which you make up for with numbers attending and non playing stuff like merchandising sales

Post on wakey board suggesting we are going into administration and cant pay wages!!! Hope to god its all just rumours!

We can't pay wages, yet we sign two new players and get in a new coach in the same week...

This was my response on the Wakey Board :
Really sorry to Rain on your parade, But We are not having Financial Difficulties, Dave "Nosey" Parker has got his story very twisted on this one, Everybody has been paid as usual, We are in in the proccess of gaining another 3 year franchise , our stadium is looking fantastic and our team have slowly started showing some promise. Matt Parish has arrived and we can now start laying foundations for next years squad and hoping to finish this year strongly. FWIW John Wilkinson is a "Wealthy" Backer as is Iain Watson who is our director and current owner of the Willows Land (Earmarked for new Godliman & Watson Homes development) . So sorry to those who were getting excited at the prospect of a Salford saving thier Teams bacon, We aint going anywhere apart from onwards and upwards!
Much Love
Salford

I dont think rumours like this can be "Nipped in the bud" Until the club actually come out and make an official statement , problem is if they do make a statement its catch 22 because we will be accused of damage limitation etc, Nobody unless you work for John WIlkinson in his finance dept can truly know the scale of the Incoming>Outgoings and it would be silly to claim otherwise. BUT i have the utmost faith in our current board and thier ability to manage our finances accordingly. The rumour started after a "source" contacted Dave Parker form Rugby League Weekly to report the overseas contingent hadnt been paid and as a result utility bills had bounced etc, and that Ray Cashmere had "Remonstrated" with club officials about this. I belive this source is a load of crock , certain players have clarified privatlely that this is a non issue and false . One player in particular was disgusted at the article. So heres hoping this nasty porky pie is buried!