It looks like bad management to me, spending what you haven't got. You reap what you sow.

How is it bad news that a club who spends its rent on marquee players goes bust? That's their business model choice.

How can you laud a club as being successful, when that success is built on that non-payment of essential bills?

Did you know that Salford are on record as admitting that, since moving to the new ground, they have NEVER once paid their full rent?

Salford council pay, as they underwrite the Devil's tenancy agreement. This current begging letter is to try and get the council to underwrite an even bigger black hole of a new tenancy agreement.

I am certainly comfortable knowing we were relegated because we ran a sustainable business model - if we have a quid, we'd spend a quid.

I feel for the supporters, always had time for Salford RLFC.
Their supporters deserve better.

Indeed we know what it’s like to have a council that doesn’t give a damn about their local club.

Surely the council have given them a lot if they are allowing them to stay without paying rent all this time?

The council has been underwriting their rent since they moved in to the AJ Bell, they defaulted on a CVA and got deducted points for it from memory, looks like things haven't improved, they haven't learned from it and the council have decided enough is enough.
The community funded club thing was just a rouse to get through the season that actually fell short, hence the reason they sold on a couple of long term contracted players, how has the RFL allowed the recent transfers/player to move in to Salford with all this going on, how have they managed to get the IMG rating they have based on all this. then to add to that now they are asking for further dispensation from their council.

Its a non financed debt so definitely affect IMG scoring

That sounds logical, but will it ?

Doesn't seem that it has.

1 only if the landlord carries the debt on. If they just wipe it each year it just appears as a 0 expense.

And from IMG point of view, they are looking at last year not this year.
It'll affect them on the next audit, which is more important to them.

The debt hasn't been written off its still standing but underwritten by the council, so is owed to the council not the landlord (for the moment) the debt has accumulated since they defaulted on the CVA (which I think was back in 2017) so for the last 3 years that IMG were looking at, it has existed and increased each year
The question is, did they reveal this debt in their IMG submission or did IMG choose to ignore it?

Unless they receive financial penalties which cost them 0.25 points
or an 'insolvency event' - which would downgrade them a level. So if they are a B they become a C