That was about using street furniture that didn't belong to the club.They could still advertise on the fences of consenting adults !

The is no reason why the site on the actual structure couldn't have a large advert, even a truck "parked" near the building saying what is being built.

Maybe not, but this suggests that we'd need permission for it ...

[iYour application for consent to display an advertisement will usually be decided by the Planning Committee of the district council or London borough council, for the site where the advertisement is to be displayed. Alternatively, the Planning Committee may have delegated this responsibility to an officer of the Council’s Planning Department. In deciding whether to approve your application, the planning authority may consider only two issues; these are described in the rules as the interests of amenity and public safety.

‘Public safety’ means the considerations which are relevant to the safe use and operation of any form of traffic or transport on land (including the safety of pedestrians), over water or in the air. So, for this purpose, the planning authority must assess the likely effects of your advertisement in relation to such matters as the behaviour of drivers, possible confusion with any traffic sign or signal, or possible interference with a navigational light or aerial beacon. But the planning authority will assume that all advertisements are intended to attract people’s attention, so that the advertisement you want to display would not automatically be regarded as a distraction to passers-by in vehicles or on foot. What matters is whether your advertisement, or the spot where you propose to site it, will be so distracting or so confusing that it creates a hazard for, or endangers, people who are taking reasonable care for their own and others’ safety. When they are considering ‘public safety’ factors for your advertisement, the planning authority will normally consult other relevant bodies, for example the highway authority if your advertisement is alongside a major road. [/i

Do the club have a truck?

rlTarry- salford happy to pool resourcesrl



sounds like a 'fait accompli' to me ..

au contraire ! only if they play together
Tennent's? are we changing the lager maybe kronenborg ?
Ca Plane Pour Moi

At the moment i feel the ground share would be posative as we as a team at moment dont have the support to run stadium on are own so if you lot see any option then what is it we get avarage 3000 gate at most ant cant see it improving till we start picking up on field so extextra finance in todays climate so would finacially a good move

Need to get some good crowds in during the first season before Sale move in. If they move in and start getting double our crowds there will be only one club pulling the strings, and it won't be us.

'Sharks' is the right word! Unfortunately, I don't think we'll have any say in the matter.

Salford are struggling to establish themselves as serious competition for Wigan, Saints, Warrington etc. Sale are the RU representatives in the NW and will throw all their weight in ensuring they continue to thrive. I fear it will be at our expense.

A very good point. The problem is the reds have never been very good at marketing, and i think if they are not careful they will be the junior partners in the ground share in the long term, which to me means moving fixtures to suit Sale.

Bit harsh. I'd agree they've never been very successful - but I've always thought the club were quite innovative and 'with it' when it comes to marketing in spite of the monumental obstacle of selling a low-quality product in a market of little interest.

I don't want to sound paranoid or come across as a prophet of doom but if this happens I fear the worst. How does Sale Sharks RL sound, it's not for me. It could easily happen, once they are let in it would only take a few twists such as Peel selling their share and an unbelievable offer to JW. Remember Peel sold the Trafford Centre. Unfortunately it's not such a fantasy, it's a realistic nightmare. As far as the Reds are concerned having an extra tenant won't help us as we don't have a stake in the real estate.