The problem is we don't have a ground and rent that is clearly unaffordable.



It would have only been a matter of time before we go bankrupt again if not for the Doctor. No way having enough money to develop the infrastructure to build a side fit for superleage.



Sale can run at huge losses we can't.



The only way to fix the situation is to develop the ground properly and make it dual purpose for business (conference centre), etc.



In the mean time the council tax payer loses money.



We need to own this ground.

Bill52 the site will not show in Peels accounts, how can it they don't own it. They may show a share holding in their accounts representing the 50% ownership of a separate company which is loosing money and needs to be propped up by additional loans. Salford RLFC have to be held accountable for not paying the rent irrespective of the fact it is now ring fenced by a 5 year CVA at the end of the day it is again taxpayers money funding a commercial organisation which clearly is non profitable and one would question solvent.

Glad you're not my accountant Marshy



Of course it will show in Peel's accounts - the 50% stakeholding will have had an agreed value at the point it happened, if that value has changed then it must be reflected on the balance sheet.

It would only be reflected in the number of shares, irrespective of that the fact the mess is being bailed out using taxpayers money is a disgrace wouldn't you agree.??

But it is a JVC that owns the stadium, not the Council, or Peel, ie off Balance Sheet, and should the venture go tits up, it does not fall back on The Council, or Peel. It would be the Stadium Management Company that would go into Administration. Which to be fair was what happened with Red City Developments, it did not fall back on the Reds or any of the other investors (including Peel) when it went into Administration.

Marshy give me an honest answer. Do you think any missed rent payments from 2012 amounted to anything close to the additional loan figure taken out by the council? There is no way both Salford and Sale Sharks are paying 1.2 million a year each to play at Barton. Personally I think this loan could mainly be related to extra build costs over the original budget.

No I don't I would hazard a guess that the rent at the ground assuming all sides are open each game would be around estimated 10 k per match, I base this on knowing what we paid for LSV when running Ian Watson's testimonial game late last year. However loan charges and other costs may well swell that amount, clearly as the details are being kept under wraps it won't be broadcast as to how much rent was missed unless of course it was listed in the CVA.

Did we really need to rehash this done-to-death subject in yet another thread?

Agree with the Butcher, as I have tried to say, nowt to do with us.

But Bill it is to do with Salford, they didn't pay for the facilities they were renting. Had they done so then perhaps the Stadium Company wouldn't need top up funds.

The last regime as got a lot to answer for and that's a fact.

Could I suggest you look forwards rather than backwards.

I think everyone knows full well what a mess the business was in - what's the point of labouring it ?