taken from [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8592378.stmhere[/url

Supporters Direct the organisation set up by a government task force in 2000 to promote Fans ownership of clubs replied with



Full article [url=http://supporters-direct.org/news/item.asp?n=9069&cat=sd_enghere[/url

with Further Reading [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/28/government-plan-football-clubs-fanshere[/url, [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/28/football-reforms-fans-buy-clubshere[/url and [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/29/football-reforms-labour-fanshere[/url.

It's a shame that none of the articles mention that there is an organisation that actively promoted this ideal.

Rugby League has two fans owned clubs, Rochdale Hornets, and Bramley Buffaloes. Several clubs have Supporters Trusts.

Would this work in Rugby League?

Would you buy shares in your club?

Would you like to see your club part (or fully) owned by you the Supporters?

It would work in football as many fans have blind faith in their teams. RL fans are too sceptical to join in on anything such as this. There is always the element of what’s in it for me rather then just accepting its more then likely a return they’re never going to see again.

Seems to be going OK so far for Bramley & Rochdale Hornets? Or FC Barcelona in football?

Widnes RLFC used to be a members club, owned by season ticket holders, who voted annually for a committee to run the club. At the start of the superleague era, the RFL required all clubs to become limited companies though. Being a members club did make it very hard to borrow money, which made it tough to raise cash for stadium developments, but equally made it somewhat less likely for the club to go bust through buying millions of pounds worth of clothes through a bank in the Dutch Antilles.

I'd like to see all clubs be run as not for profit members' clubs, with an elected chairman and board (paid expenses), appointing a chief exec (paid a wage) to run the club and a head coach to run the team.
The membership to underwrite limited losses with a bond. The prospect of having to renew that bond too frequently, (or never, if a club breaks even) would hopefully engender a bit of responsibility.
That would see clubs right year to year, but it'd be hard to fund major capital expenditure. As not for profit community clubs, perhaps there'd be be more opportunity for govt grants.
Probably just a pipe dream, but.

It could be very difficult for a members club to borrow money but this would depend on how the organisation was constituted. The supporters trusts that Supporters Direct work with are formed as Independent and Provident Societies (not-for-profit co-operatives) so would actually find it easier to raise money (and have access to a wider circle) from grants and loans than a privately owned company due to their focus on the local community and sustainability.

The key to the suggested reforms from Labour would be how exactly the supporters wanted to use the influence. For example, a supporters trust that doesn't own the club but wants to pick the team every week isn't going to be successful. The key to success at Bramley and Rochdale is to make the distinction that every member has a stake in their club and that every member has the opportunity to run that club should they wish (by standing for the Board), but unless they are on the Board of the club they are not going to be involved in the day-to-day running of it.

DISASTER.
In reality fans cant put forward the sort of funding required to support the black hole that is Rugby League investment.

Maybe it would force clubs to not live beyond their means? Or maybe not.

The difficulty is, as is seen in the Real Madrid or Barcelona models, that the elections become bidding wars.

Imagine Mr. Ordinary Fan stands on a platform prudent frugality, long-term stability and trundling along in mid-table, hoping for a good cup run.
The other candidate is Mr. Sugar Daddy, who can promise a significant sponsorship deal with Sugar Daddy holdings plc, which will be used to fund the capture of a 3 or 4 of big signings, that will mean the club can spend up to the cap and can expect to challenge for honours. He is going to win isn't he?
And in doing so increase the chances of other clubs following that route, to compete.

The reason RL loses money is that people are willing to lose money on RL. That is what drives it, not so much the regulations. The main benefits of these rules is that you could 'buy' the chairmanship, but not the club and there'd be a brake on the accumulation of debt.

Dico, in reality the fans don't need to come up with hundreds of thousands of pounds in order to keep a club running. Any supporters trust owned club (regardless of sport) has to act as a business, which means bringing in sponsorship, selling hospitality etc - all the things that a privately owned club has to do to survive. The difference is that a trust owned club cannot spend its money recklessly in the pursuit of success which has and will continue be the downfall of many clubs. That's not to say supporter owned clubs can't be successful. Barcelona FC are the biggest supporter owned football club in the world and in Germany, they have a rule which states that 51% of every club must be owned by the supporters. We can hardly argue that they haven't had their fair share of success over the years?

Look how much the board pour into Kr, Hudds, Quins, Widnes, Wire run at a quarter mill loss and so on. Supporters trusts couldnt fund this

Don't all clubs sell shares anyway? I know HKR have shares that fans can buy and do new releases occasionally. Not sure what the % of a clubs total shares are owned by the fans?
Other alternative is like South Sydney where the club has private owners but fans are paid up members and have voting rights with a number of key issues not allowed to be decided by the owners without fans getting a say.

Blatant pre-election gimmick based on the current campaign going on at Man Utd.

It will never happen, it could probably work to some extent at smaller football and most RL clubs, but even then experiences in football at Bournemouth and Stockport haven't been all that successful.

They couldn't, so they wouldn't. They'd be less 'competitive', but so would most other clubs, mitigating the situation significantly. The cap would still be in place and could be adjusted to prevent an unchanging elite emerging.

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..

Oh please...oh yes please....