Don't know why I get drawn into these things but can't help myself when people just make things up to suit their agenda.



If people wanted to check they would see we have 16 or 17 players missing for Friday, 3 of whom are banned.



We have one half back and no hookers available, have brought 3 in on loan, have used all the players we feel are able to step up from the 19s (who are getting caned every week) other than those on loan that can't be recalled and we've re-registered Ian Watson. People can argue that we should have invested in youth but the idea that doing so means we would have a strong u19s after 18 months of the Doc being in charge in nonsense. He has invested heavily in the youth set up and Harris has transformed the way the u19s and 1st team work together but the results will be a few years down the line (except for the players we have already promoted)



Puletua was taken off our overseas register so can't play or we would be over-quota. The club took the decision to use quota places elsewhere and who's to say that, given his ageing dodgy knees, TP wouldn't be on the injured list if he was still eligible. Nothing against TP, he was good for us last year but the club decided to use the overseas spaces differently. Shame for him but it happens. If he's owed money he should be paid it



Yes Saints, Wigan and Leeds would cope much better than us and probably Warrington. Don't think any others would though



Don't see a problem in asking. I'm sure we expected a 'No' which is what we have got and no Salford fan has a problem with



Don't really see a problem with it being tweeted either. One of the main complaints in the past has been about fans being kept in the dark about what goes on at their clubs. I would much rather have a situation where 'too much' is known than too little



Anyway crack on

Seems like Salford need a better academy rather than worrying about star signings and marquee players...

Giants might offer to loan them Brett Ferres ?

I bet there are some amature RL players who would die to play for Salford?

Cue the 'doctor' demanding a new rule being brought in where clubs can postpone games if they have a rich enough owner ! ....they have suspensions on top of their injuries, tough e they're players should behave better on the field then they wouldn't have as many to find ...you reap what you sow, get on with it !!!

The request is almost as pathetic as salford's attendances

He is a Rovers fan, so blithe ignorance and stupidity is a prerequisite

Big fan of the Dr, but its what happens when you have bought headlines, and not depth.... Should have allowed Nobby more time to build from the bottom....



Also, nice to see another club receiving undeserved ire for a change...

Edited for accuracy

Salford making themselves look daft again. That club desperately needs to be run in a more professional fashion.



Getting into financial and legal disputes with your players and then admitting you can't fulfil your fixtures will put off even average players from going to Salford.

did m/boro in football do this they got fined n lost points n also when down as well because of this i think

Well they'd be unavailable too in that case.

He has bought depth. We have the strongest squad we've ever had (not the strongest of competition!). We have 17 players out. 8 or 10 out, even 12 we could have coped with. We had 14 out yesterday and list to last year's 2nd place team by 2 points. But 17? That leaves us with 13 plus a couple on loan.



Our older 19s are either already on the squad and playing or on long term loans. Not sure about bringing them back. That might be one option. not sure the fans of the clubs they're on loan to would be pleased and I guess it would cost us a few grand. But it might be an option



Our u19s has been revamped to focus on developing younger players so are mostly 16 or 17. I believe that's the long term thinking that most people are telling us we should be doing



As fir the ire, we certainly seems to be the marmite team of the year!

Very good

I can see your point but I suspect this was about lodging in the public's mind that we are severely depleted so f we get a caning in this game and drop out of the 8th it helps manage the 'same old Salford' response



It's hard for some to get how hard it is to rebalance the low expectations of the Salford public. After the opening against Warrington I went for a few pints. Half a dozen people asked me the result and when I said we'd lost they all said separately 'I thought they were supposed to be good now'



We'd lost to one of comp favourites away by 14 points. So not great but not a bad result by any means. But to the Salford public it's just further proof about how crap we are. We're in the top 4-6 and can still only pull in 3-4k. I think it's hoped that if people are aware of hoe depleted we are the response might be 'not a bad result considering.....' Rather than 'Salford always get beaten'



Admittedly may make some think Salford are badly run of they're struggling to get a team out but I guess that's the marketing gamble?

it's not often a squad is stripped so thinly, but 4 of those are of Salford's own making....and why should Hull or any other club have to wait til Salford have enough players to compete, why should another club be punished?



i'm damn sure Salford have 17 players throughout their first team squad and U19's to be able to fulfill the fixture, if they lose then tough, it's the way of the world.

It's still 3, not 4, out of 17 missing, as has been said earlier but don't worry about mere detail. And most Salford fans agree and state repeatedly that we have to suck that up and we are even more ed off with the 3 who picked up long bans than we already were



No-one thinks another club should be punished. Most agree we shouldn't have asked. I'm not sure what harm if does to ask, however pointless. Salford are not trying to break any rules, force something to happen, force a club to do something they don't want to or disadvantage anyone. We asked, Hull said no, we accepted it and will get on with trying to find 17 players to put out. If you read other posts you might see why we're struggling to get 17

enter the RL www.newsnow.co.uk/A/770259843?-4338:2393

enter the RL www.newsnow.co.uk/A/770259843?-4338:2393

If the RFL postpone this game, it will be up there with one of the worst decisions in their history and it could set a very dangerous situations in the future.



I honestly can't believe they have the nerve to ask for this. I'm sure other teams have been in similar situations and have just got on with it. Even most Salford fans think it's a stupid request to make.

Yep. I can remember a few years ago Leeds had 14 out for various reasons. I'm sure other clubs have too.

Too right, it would be a scandal. Much as I don't want you lot gifted two points, it would set a bad precedent.



Maybe we could get our game off at Wigan, we have some injuries as well.



Hull did the right thing in telling them to clear off, but don't rule out the RFL backing Salford.

Would Salford be asking for the game to be postponed if they had not lost to Leigh???



Because then the games would be backing up for them.



Because they have lost to leigh they have a few free weekends coming up in the challenge cup.

How can Salford only get 2800 (suspicious round number) on the Sunday, yet an average team like Sale get 8,129 on the Saturday? If you minus the away fans at Salfords game, there cant be many Salford fans there in attendance at all.

the RFL should laugh at the thought ..how ridiculous would it make our sport look?



a club seemingly on the up with a rich owner has to postpone a game because they haven't got enough players.



it's a very dangerous precedent to set and would be totally unfair on all the clubs who are trying to win games.

How can Salford only get 2800 (suspicious round number) on the Sunday, yet an average team like Sale get 8,129 on the Saturday? If you minus the away fans at Salfords game, there cant be many Salford fans there in attendance at all.