Do you know that if you have a brand new stadium crowds automatically increase and stay at a very high level.



I know this this to be true as Doncaster have amply shown.

I would argue that the derby at Wembley would be the second greatest factor. The fact is that Manchester/Salford is a football-mad city where RL has a hardcore of fans and a large number again of sympathisers who will go if there's no football. Always has been so, always will be.



This being the second greatest factor because it exacerbates the biggest one: the bizarre kick-off time when all of this was known long in advance.

There are some right thick muvvers on here comparing Salford with Warrington/Hull.



Two towns with large junior set ups and thousands of families awash in the sport against a soccer dominated city with little history at junior level and a population who largely couldnt give a luvv about the game - no offence to the hardcore sailing into the hurricane.



A business grows from foundations - somebody tell the RFL that before its too late.

Quite agree Maurice to an extent.



We are not a normal business but one that's main product is paid for by an external business (Sky) whose marketing and sales decisions determine how that product will be spatially located.



So, the roots are around the (old) coalfield in Lancashire, the woollen area of West Yorkshire and Hull. Bit limited for Sky - how do you market a fourth Leeds/Wigan match followed by fourth Warrington/Saints game, away from the play-offs.

Salford is not in this area but making a fist of representing the Manchester conurbation on several levels not just RL.



As I noted above, cans of worms are opened once you get into the discussion.

I was comparing Salford with Warrington and Hull. Cheers for calling me thick. I don't know what a muvver is. You're the one who thinks that there are bigger football clubs in the city than Salford. Or did you not know that Salford and Manchester were two completely different cities? Oops.



Salford has a population of over 220K Warrington has 196K.

Salfords RL team average 5K before moving into a new stadium. Warrington averaged 6K.

Salford should get 7,000 first year, with a good team, 7,500 the year after. Max in 5 years 11,000.

Have a go at 35000 in 5 years, 15000 first year with potentially 75000 in 10 years

I would certainly agree. That's a realistic ambition, and I would question the viablity of the Franchise if they don't get 75,000 in 10 years, especially in a 12,000 stadium.

and I was highlighting how stupid that comparison was. Birmingham has a population of a lot more than that - it makes fook all difference as well if there is no interest in the game.



PS Dont tell the rfl they are two different places btw Now wash your hair and get ready for bed.

Would need a move to OT of course, although I thought it was a contest of how to pick random numbers out of thin air whilst ignoring facts or common sense

I thought I was being realistic based on Wire and Hulls surge in crowds

But I was wrong, and I am sorry for that maurice.

Why is it stupid? Warringtons crowds were pretty much the same as Salfords are now before they moved stadium. Warrington and Salford are both Rugby League towns/cities. Salford being the larger of the two. I don't see what's stupid about it. What Birmingham has to do with it i'll never know, maybe you don't want to actually have a discussion like an adult, that's why you add immature little comments on the end of your posts.