Greg Florimos Boots wrote:A big point about all this work getting done on the stadium, it actually makes SL a realistically proposition for us if someone with money came in to the club. Without the stadium works its impossible for us to get enough points but this would change all that.
The question that a lot of people want clarifying about all the work is with Ken Daley saying he was “loaning” the money to the clubs to get it done who is actually paying for it?
Could be wrong but If he gets approval to buy it, it looks like and others have suggested although it would have been agreed, because of all the legalities the deal won’t be done / fully completed before the work has to start so he would have to loan the money to the clubs before he is legally the owner?
But why would he be lending the money to the clubs when it would be CMBC who still legally owned the ground when the work was being done and wouldn’t it be their responsibility to manage the installation of the drainage, pitch etc and pay for it?
If it was the clubs who were being loaned the money what sort of arrangement would it be?
Ken Davey paying the biggest part, the clubs paying or some percentage combination.
Unless Fax get the new rumoured board / consortium then they couldn’t afford any of it so lots of questions need answering and a lot of things need to happen in pretty short order on just that front.
Add to that the other off field tax issue and the on field numbers of fit players the same applies there so interesting period ahead.
Last edited by faxcar on Mon Jan 13, 2025 2:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I don’t think it would improve our IMG points either. We still wouldn’t own the standout and will still be tenants, sharing with a football club and another RL side. Who would control match day catering? As we and the football would still be tenants would the revenue made from these sales go to KD and therefore the Giants?
Faxlore wrote:I don’t think it would improve our IMG points either. We still wouldn’t own the standout and will still be tenants, sharing with a football club and another RL side. Who would control match day catering? As we and the football would still be tenants would the revenue made from these sales go to KD and therefore the Giants?
IMG wise if all the upgrades that are talked about are done we would increase our score by 1.0 for the facilities, 0.125 for the LED boards, and 0.125 for the big screen (I can't recall seeing mention of this), which takes us over 10 points. We have a ton of scope to improve on the finances section which if we could do would have us battling for around 13th/14th spot. I guess the down side in this is that Huddersfield would move to a Grade A ranking only leaving Hull and Salford as targets.
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."― Albert Einstein "Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense." ― Gertrude Stein "Don't believe everything you read on the internet" ― Abraham Lincoln
Greg Florimos Boots wrote:IMG wise if all the upgrades that are talked about are done we would increase our score by 1.0 for the facilities, 0.125 for the LED boards, and 0.125 for the big screen (I can't recall seeing mention of this), which takes us over 10 points. We have a ton of scope to improve on the finances section which if we could do would have us battling for around 13th/14th spot. I guess the down side in this is that Huddersfield would move to a Grade A ranking only leaving Hull and Salford as targets.
Raises another couple of questions for the powers that be to decide, would the Giants be classed as being based in Calderdale as long as they were here or be given some dispensation as a temporary move.
On the minus side would we not lose some percentage of points for sharing a catchment area if they were classed as being based in Calderdale?
faxcar wrote:On the minus side would we not lose some percentage of points for sharing a catchment area if they were classed as being based in Calderdale?
It does look that way but hard to find the official data. What I can find is that the population looks to be around 208k which will be split in 2 to drop us from 1 point to 0.5 points until the Giants leave. I saw a Giants fan claiming their score would go up which seems to be impossible if that population is correct.
"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."― Albert Einstein "Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense." ― Gertrude Stein "Don't believe everything you read on the internet" ― Abraham Lincoln
Greg Florimos Boots wrote:It does look that way but hard to find the official data. What I can find is that the population looks to be around 208k which will be split in 2 to drop us from 1 point to 0.5 points until the Giants leave. I saw a Giants fan claiming their score would go up which seems to be impossible if that population is correct.
Yes saw that in their thread on the subject on Total mentioning how them Batley and Dewsbury had divided Kirklees by 3.
Interesting chart below from there that you will have seen but maybe not everyone on how the population numbers dictate the points.
In general there doesn’t seem to be any excessive resistance to the proposal though.
Greg Florimos Boots wrote:It does look that way but hard to find the official data. What I can find is that the population looks to be around 208k which will be split in 2 to drop us from 1 point to 0.5 points until the Giants leave. I saw a Giants fan claiming their score would go up which seems to be impossible if that population is correct.
Yes saw that in their thread on the subject on Total mentioning how them Batley and Dewsbury had divided Kirklees by 3.
Interesting chart below from there that you will have seen but maybe not everyone on how the population numbers dictate the points.
In general there doesn’t seem to be any excessive resistance to the proposal though.
Why would there be excessive resistance? If we had an owner who wants to take the club away from a shared stadium and build their own stadium and facilities, who would complain about that. Many FC supports would cheer about such a proposal and so would I.
faxcar wrote:Yes saw that in their thread on the subject on Total mentioning how them Batley and Dewsbury had divided Kirklees by 3.
Interesting chart below from there that you will have seen but maybe not everyone on how the population numbers dictate the points.
In general there doesn’t seem to be any excessive resistance to the proposal though.
Why would there be excessive resistance? If we had an owner who wants to take the club away from a shared stadium and build their own stadium and facilities, who would complain about that. Many FC supports would cheer about such a proposal and so would I.
Faxlore wrote:Why would there be excessive resistance? If we had an owner who wants to take the club away from a shared stadium and build their own stadium and facilities, who would complain about that. Many FC supports would cheer about such a proposal and so would I.
I was talking about the move for them out of Huddersfield to the Shay which although being described as temporary would likely be for some considerable time whilst everything to do with finding a site, planning permission and then building a new stadium involved got sorted out.
If we did it I would be concerned about us ever going back to our home town, loss of identity and or being swallowed up in some sort of a merger with the home ground being out side of Halifax with a different name and ceasing to exist as a club or in the Giants case that applying to them and remember the reaction from Fax fans when the proposed merger with Bradford to Tony Gartland.
The days of the Shay ever just being the home of FC Town are over with and everyone needs to move on to the reality of 2025.
The council are losing too much money and they have to get rid and if Fax left it would only hasten the departure of FC Town as well.
If that's a reason for anyone to cheer bearing in mind it's the ones fuelled by hatred that would be the cheering the loudest, well enough said and they need to careful what they wish for or their dream would soon become a nightmare.
Last edited by faxcar on Tue Jan 14, 2025 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 6632 Location: Halifax, the sleeping giants of Rugby League
Rugby League is slowly dying, Salford will be the next SL club to go bust and when you have McManus at Saints saying they'll have to cut costs (he's fed up of throwing money into a deep pit) then you know there's problems. Will all come to a head when SKY offers a pittance in the next renewal. As for the championship, it's only a matter of time before everything falls apart. Crowds decreasing and interest waning. Using myself as a yard stick I not at all excited about the start of the new season ..... I don't care! There was an article by Chris Foy in the Daily Mail a few months back about Union and League merging ...... it makes sense, Union is much more watchable than it used to be and I actually enjoy watching Union highlights on the telly.
Tony Fax wrote:Rugby League is slowly dying, Salford will be the next SL club to go bust and when you have McManus at Saints saying they'll have to cut costs (he's fed up of throwing money into a deep pit) then you know there's problems. Will all come to a head when SKY offers a pittance in the next renewal. As for the championship, it's only a matter of time before everything falls apart. Crowds decreasing and interest waning. Using myself as a yard stick I not at all excited about the start of the new season ..... I don't care! There was an article by Chris Foy in the Daily Mail a few months back about Union and League merging ...... it makes sense, Union is much more watchable than it used to be and I actually enjoy watching Union highlights on the telly.
In his latest ‘Talking Rugby League’ column, League Express editor MARTYN SADLER suggests that long-term strategic thinking is needed by Super League club owners in their approach to the liquidity crisis at Salford Red Devils.
IS Salford the canary in the coal mine?
The Super League club owners will meet on Tuesday and their reaction to the crisis at Salford Red Devils could tell us a lot about whether Super League has a viable future.
The liquidity crisis at Salford is merely a symptom of what is happening across Super League, whose clubs lost many millions collectively during 2024.
I’m told that Salford’s losses were apparently lower than those of any other club in the competition, with one owner, for example, having had to put £4 million into his club to keep it operating.
The eleven clubs other than Salford are fortunate that they have owners who can do this, but I’m sure that Hull FC would have been in the same position as Salford if new investors hadn’t turned up in the nick of time.
And if any or all of the existing owners were to walk away, then Super League would be in an awful mess.
Salford were last week urged by the RFL to offload their leading players to other clubs, ideally for substantial transfer fees that would help reduce their deficit, while they are also being urged to cut their costs as a whole to the bone, which would clearly make them uncompetitive as a Super League team.
Rugby League’s business model clearly doesn’t work and it needs urgent surgery to transform itself into a model that is sustainable and can secure stability and then growth.
Unfortunately I see no sign of the current leadership of the game being able to achieve that aim.
The danger is that the competition will weaken and the dominoes will begin to topple one by one.
The club owners getting together is an encouraging sign, but only if they make the right decisions.
And the key principle they have to follow is that the competition itself has greater value and importance than any of the individual clubs.
If we see the other clubs swooping to sign Salford players, thereby fatally weakening the Red Devils and reducing the club to being a passenger in the 2025 season, then I’m afraid there is little hope for the game.
With a new broadcasting agreement due to begin in 2027, the demise of Salford will significantly reduce the value of those rights, as we have seen with Premiership rugby union after it lost three clubs and was reduced to a ten-team competition.
So if that isn’t to happen and the value of the competition is to be protected, then the clubs have to take control of the situation by becoming far more creative in shoring up its weakest links.
What that means is that they have to combine their resources to protect Salford’s position in Super League so that the Red Devils can retain their current squad and be competitive.
I understand that the Red Devils are in discussions with an Australian consortium that is seeking to buy the club.
I’m not sure if and when that deal will be completed, but the other Super League clubs need to effectively provide Salford with a bridging loan from their own resources to tide them over until that deal is completed and, if it isn’t completed, until the end of the season.
The other clubs have some very wealthy owners who must realise that the value of their own clubs depends on the value of Super League as a whole and they therefore need Salford to not just survive but thrive.
To raise, say, £1 million between them as private individuals on a relatively short-term basis shouldn’t be too difficult.
They are all successful businessmen and they should realise that this would be the best way forward.
If they don’t, and they put their own clubs’ short-term interests ahead of the long-term interests of the Super League competition, then I’m afraid that Super League doesn’t have much of a future.
Users browsing this forum: Listenup94 and 58 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
