No, the difference was two stances were trotted out by people at the club: one, that 8,000 was the break-even figure and two, that 8,000 was to achieve maximum salary cap spend with the break-even figure being quite lower. That Salford could not coordinate it's communication was the fact.

In a nutshell, probably.

We can fairly easily account for money in, and have safe constitutional structures for holding it, and can keep it separate for a specific fund (that could be returned if not needed) - though we need to find out more on the implications of a significantly increased turnover from a tax and audit perspective (I'm speaking to Supporters Direct about this). From an IPS laws perspective, it does ultimately depend on where the money goes and for what purpose.

I would imagine SD will mention this but I would also be sure to give the bank a call to explain why there might be more cash flowing through the bank accounts.

It does seem like the situation is almost the same as we were in two years ago, and so it may be that you have a low before the high. Although the directors' loan being cashed in for free is a burden off any investor, the 2m debt owed to the council and bank isn't, along with the other creditors. I can only imagine that any business plan is much better without those hanging around and so is less reliant on high attendances. This would allow the club to service the squad rather than the debts.

In a nutshell, therefore, I wonder whether investors will do what they did with us and wait for administration and then step in with a bargain basement offer. There were rumours of more than one interested party waiting for administration with us, and the reason suggested for one pulling out was because the lack of any assurances over Super League survival.

It will get bumpy before its gets smooth but I hope it works out. One of the biggest mistakes we would have made as fans was try to prop up the club, and look at the Bulls fans who threw good money away last year. If I was an investor, I would wait for administration, because with those debts, you are probably investing in a plate-spinning exercising until you succumb yourself. So it might get bad before its gets better, but maybe that better is lot healthier in the long term than what seems like an immediate rescue.

Re. the 8k crowds, going off my memory and the notes I made last night, I certainly do think that the business plan depends on 8,000 people turning up each week. He said at one point "we have a viable business plan if we get 8,000 crowds." I think that started off one of the "shouty" bits from the floor.

Bit of a catch 22 with the 8k numbers.

For Salford to even get close to those numbers they need to be a top 6 side. Without significant investment into the playing squad they can't achieve this. As it stands, the team will not be successful enough to bring in more regulars and draw a bigger awway support. I think all the marketing in the world matters little when you're trying to market a turd. The only way you can build with successful marketing is with successful results on the pitch.

I just can't see any way we could touch the top 6 as the team stands. If we manage to start the season. Barring a coaching miracle from PV and SL of Hollywood proportions it's just not going to happen.

My worry is that so many fans have had their fingers burnt by the Club that it might be difficult to even sustain half that number.

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?