: Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:47 pm  

nnn wrote:

Difficult games ahead...5-4 to be sacked and a series of gutless performances I think it is a matter of if rather than when.

With 2.5 years to run on McRae's contract there is no way he will be going anywhere imo because in this economic climate the club simply can't afford a pay off. The club will be at their absolute financial limit with the new players we have brought in for this season.

I just hope the fans and the players realise this because they risk putting the club in serious financial trouble and possibly administration if they put pressure on the board to act.

Why is it always the coaches fault? It made me laugh when Harrison got sacked and then our players and fans came out and said it wasn't his fault and how sorry they felt!

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:50 pm  

theredshed wrote:

I just hope the fans and the players realise this because they risk putting the club in serious financial trouble and possibly administration if they put pressure on the board to act.

Can we not just buy him off with a big ham?

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:54 pm  

martin13 wrote:

something will happen about the stadium, i believe this because peel holdings need that land developed more than we need a stadium.

but i just wish someone from the club would come out and tell us the truth.

The difficult thing for the club is that they are no longer directly involved with building the Stadium as they were in the Red City Developments days, Peel Holdings are and they decide when to release information. The last we saw was good news in January about the college taking up space in the building.

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 12:56 pm  

Chico wrote:

Can we not just buy him off with a big ham?

I'm sure McRae's agent would find that very acceptable!

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:01 pm  

Missed the Howard meeting due to work.

In the old project our revenue was incresed by the retail and other items, how will that stack up against these revise plans. I don't see we can generate sufficient income to pay the full cap.

As for sacking coaches, Karl seemed unwilling to adapt his plans for year 2. We can't afford to allow a coach to be so lacking in vision again.

Has anyone seen in the last 18 months anything that will suggest Salford will play the sort of Rugby we want?

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:08 pm  

Red Willow wrote:

In the old project our revenue was incresed by the retail and other items, how will that stack up against these revise plans. I don't see we can generate sufficient income to pay the full cap.

The club are now reliant on gate receipts. Presumably, an average of 8000+ is a must.

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:21 pm  

I agree with you theredshed, thought gettin rid of carl was a mistake, all clubs go through rough patches, and yes i maybe think a few players were goin to other clubs no mater what ,so the effort wasnt there, money speaks more than respect of a club, blame the players not the coach

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:41 pm  

Does anyone know who is paying for the college to be built? Is it Peel or the public purse? Either way I see this addition only slowing the development down.

The fact that we will no longer keep food and beverage profits and presumably have no control over pricing is another factor that I don't like the sound of.

Re: Wilkinson backing McRae : Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:56 pm  

shed head wrote:

where does is it say anything about three games?

I'm surprised you missed it, right there between the third and the fourth line.

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 2:03 pm  

Repo wrote:

Does anyone know who is paying for the college to be built? Is it Peel or the public purse? Either way I see this addition only slowing the development down.

The fact that we will no longer keep food and beverage profits and presumably have no control over pricing is another factor that I don't like the sound of.

the money for the college will come from BSF (building schools for the future) fund that Salford have been granted to renovate or rebuild their educational establishments

a smart bit of business on Salford - or peel's - part