I've got it.

Release a statement regarding the stadium!!!

GT wrote:Updating the splash page so that it doesn't carry adverts for the last game long into the following week would be a simple place to start. You can actually have programmable splash pages with images stored for various events, matches and so on - once the date of the game/event has been and gone, the image automatically changes to the next one. Never been a fan of splash pages anyway: Jacob Nielsen/Nielsen Norman Group (2001) wrote:In general, it's best to show site content immediately. Intermediary screens are rarely necessary and keep users from getting to the main site content. Worse, the intermediate pages might confuse some users into not recognizing the 'real' homepage. 85. Take users to your 'real' homepage when they type your main URL or click a link to your site. Splash screens must die. An exception: If your site has material that is inappropriate for minors or that is likely to offend some users, it is appropriate to have a splash screen warning about the content. http://www.useit.com/homepageusability/guidelines.html GT wrote:Bring back the Golden Angel scheme. Alright, it wasn't popular with some, but it worked. 6,000+ against Swinton? Imagine what we could pull in against Leeds! It needs to be worked properly though, with some kind of incentive to keep people coming back in weeks when the scheme doesn't run. You've alluded to the problem with the Golden Angel scheme. Data the club collated suggests that very few came back when they had to pay. I guess these schemes are best served when your team is actually producing good quality entertainment on the field consistently.

GT wrote:Updating the splash page so that it doesn't carry adverts for the last game long into the following week would be a simple place to start. You can actually have programmable splash pages with images stored for various events, matches and so on - once the date of the game/event has been and gone, the image automatically changes to the next one. Never been a fan of splash pages anyway: Jacob Nielsen/Nielsen Norman Group (2001) wrote:In general, it's best to show site content immediately. Intermediary screens are rarely necessary and keep users from getting to the main site content. Worse, the intermediate pages might confuse some users into not recognizing the 'real' homepage. 85. Take users to your 'real' homepage when they type your main URL or click a link to your site. Splash screens must die. An exception: If your site has material that is inappropriate for minors or that is likely to offend some users, it is appropriate to have a splash screen warning about the content. http://www.useit.com/homepageusability/guidelines.html GT wrote:Bring back the Golden Angel scheme. Alright, it wasn't popular with some, but it worked. 6,000+ against Swinton? Imagine what we could pull in against Leeds! It needs to be worked properly though, with some kind of incentive to keep people coming back in weeks when the scheme doesn't run. You've alluded to the problem with the Golden Angel scheme. Data the club collated suggests that very few came back when they had to pay. I guess these schemes are best served when your team is actually producing good quality entertainment on the field consistently.

Chico wrote:Never been a fan of splash pages anyway: http://www.useit.com/homepageusability/guidelines.html Well if you want to be really arsey about it, then fine, we'll do that instead. Chico wrote:You've alluded to the problem with the Golden Angel scheme. Data the club collated suggests that very few came back when they had to pay. I guess these schemes are best served when your team is actually producing good quality entertainment on the field consistently. That was the main problem, agreed. But as I said, if there's an incentive there (f**k knows what) for them to come back, not just the rugby, then you never know... Again, I guess it comes down to pre and post match entertainment in that respect.

Chico wrote:Never been a fan of splash pages anyway: http://www.useit.com/homepageusability/guidelines.html Well if you want to be really arsey about it, then fine, we'll do that instead. Chico wrote:You've alluded to the problem with the Golden Angel scheme. Data the club collated suggests that very few came back when they had to pay. I guess these schemes are best served when your team is actually producing good quality entertainment on the field consistently. That was the main problem, agreed. But as I said, if there's an incentive there (f**k knows what) for them to come back, not just the rugby, then you never know... Again, I guess it comes down to pre and post match entertainment in that respect.

Surely with Peel as owners the club would have a more professional outlook and stand a chance with a bright shiny new stadium, better quality players and hopefully a better product on the field of making the club self sufficient. I'm all for a company like Peel buying the club to make money as any businessman knows you need to invest and do things professionally to do that and you only have to look at Peel to see how they are profit generating monster.

One issue is that there's no money in running a rugby league club. Nor in vast majority of football clubs.

Here's another issue: what if, to maximise 'profits', such an owner were to move or rename the club?

I could see the club making money if some ofthe sundries on the land surrounding the new stadium were linked to the club, hotel, gym, park and ride (why the council/club havent cottoned onto making the area a park and ride for people who commute down the M62 is beyond me, £5 to park for the day with a ride to andfrom town would be a massive cash cow for both). Again this all comes from a company like Peel being professional you can bet werethey the current owners there would be a greater potential for the clubto make money from the new stadium than just being tennants.

Can't see them moving the club when they are in a brand new stadium, the renameing to a Manchester themed entity I could see but would we all complain if that brought about success for what we would always know andcall Salford RFLC?

Nail on Head precisely

So it has to be run not for profit, which is either as a labour of love and toy for a rich sugar daddy, or a supporters trust IF you've got enough supporters with enough cash.

The benefit of the supporters trust approach is that it becomes self-sustaining if you can build up the initial momentum - I fear that could be a tad tricky in the current UK economic climate and given the relative economic position of the Salford area - i.e. to raise £1million - 1 donor who's won the lottery or 10,000 donors with £100 quid each - 2,000 donors with £500 etc etc - given our crowds of around 3,000 with a proportion of kids and pensioners then this would seem to be a pipe dream (not criticising kids & pensioners just commenting on the likelyhood of them having any spare cash!)

One thing I would do straight away is get a billboard the size of a battleship on the site of the new ground, artist’s impression of it, this is where the new Salford City Reds stadium will be etc., some sore of countdown timer to when it’s going to be open.

Think of the number of people that will drive past the site between now and it being built. I think the club have a great chance to get some new people down to The Willows to see a game on the back of people wanting to be part of this before we move.

Hmmm... I like it!