Here's the fallacy about any new stadium: having one is not [ithe[/i key to a Super League licence. Otherwise Widnes or Leigh would have got the nod above Salford. St Helens, for example, bring far too much to the competition regardless of where they play; they could play in Tehran and be safe from expulsion.
Salford’s problems extend further than complications over the new ground. What do we bring to Super League at the moment? We don't have the novelty factor like Celtic do. The club doesn't have a recent legacy like Bradford do. The team doesn't compete like Wakefield has for the last a few years. And, on average, Castleford attract 2500–3000 more people through the turnstiles.
Salford's big selling point now isn't the new stadium. Purely because even if it is built, it won't generate the sums of money we were originally promised to give us the spending power of a Warrington. A new ground without a 'sugar daddy' is pointless to us.
No, Salford's big selling point now is its location — its catchment area. Expanding our support into central, east and south Manchester is probably the only thing the RFL are looking at us to provide a footing for rugby league. [url=http://www.crainsmanchesterbusiness.co.uk/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090429/FREE/904299969David Tarry said[/url it again last week:
Quote ="James Chapelard/Crains"Salford City Reds are working very closely with all of our partners to ensure that the Club are able to continue the development within our timeframes. We look forward to introducing Super League to the whole Manchester region.'"
Of course, we need somewhere to play or we're screwed. But even with the new ground, without actively growing amongst the Manchester area, our nads could be chopped off regardless.