Spot on. Whoever wins the election will bin the whole thing - ignore it.

Ignore it?



What about the work that Supporters Direct do? should we bin that too?







Thats the exact thing we are trying to avoid. ST's wouldn't put that sort of money in as it's not economincally viable to do so. surely you should only be paying out what you can afford to do. and not be reliant on mr x or y to fund the club?

Works pretty well for the Green Bay Packers.

It may well simply be a pre-election vote grabber but I don't believe anyone can be certain that it will be dropped as soon as the election is over. This is a big issue at the moment and the government is under pressure to step in and do something. Those issues aren't going to go away overnight and whilst the proposal is far from flawless, it could certainly bring benefits to football and other sports including rugby league if it as developed properly and with a number of bodies such as Supporters Direct, the FA (maybe even the RFL) and club owners being involved from the start.



The aim of the proposal is not to make football poor, it is to weed out the irresponsible owners claiming to pour millions of pounds into the club whilst actually financing this 'investment' with loans which are then transferred to the club (see Manchester United and Liverpool). Nobody can deny that sugar daddies have been good for the game in terms of success on the field and there are undoubtedly some that are fully supportive of the club they own and would never dream of walking away and leaving the club facing financial ruin but the model simply isn't sustainable. The sugar daddies have to make money somehow and if that income stops or whatever reason the sports club is in big trouble.



Supporters Trusts are not the right option for every club in terms of complete ownership, but even those not in ownership of the club can use a shareholding to act as guardians of the club to ensure the major investor is running the club sustainably. It is very much down to the supporters and how they see their position with the club - are they happy to keep pumping their time and money into the black hole of club financies or would they like to know exactly where that money is going?



Unfortunately, there are many supporters in both games who are happy to sit and complain about their club being badly run but not willing to step and do something about it.

The RFL do not want any supporter owned clubs in SL , or even the Championships for that matter

Do you know this for certain? I'd be keen to know your source of information.



It seems an odd statement to make given that the RFL have part funded my position as Rugby League Supporters Trusts Development Officer for Supporters Direct.

They are happy for a supporters trust to come in and save a club from going under because they are not viable and are of no interest to any individual , but they would never grant a licence to a club run by a commitee , bear in mind that at the moment there is probably only 1/2 profitable pro/semi pro RL clubs in britain , unless a club can pull in at least 20,000 members of supporters trust they just dont have the financial muscle to build a club , all they can do is tread water until a ' sugar daddy ' turns up

I wouldn’t mind having a crack at running Leeds Rhinos..

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 589872.stm

news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 589872.stm

It would mean attending matches though.

I think you've had too much already

Coming your way..