Can't agree with you on this one.

Yes as a long term objective it's right but in the short term no. Leeds already were a strong club, we are not and have not been for 40 years. We need some investment to kick it off IMO no matter what happens.

Also as far as I remember Caddick did initially refinance the whole Headingley operation so they did have support.

Finally and this is not a criticism but if we should be as you suggest why have a chairman at all? The ST might as well get a loan and give AG his 30k back and run the club themselves - make TRB the CEO (he'd love that

) - job done. If directors don't put their hand in their pocket occasionally what is the point, their is nothing to suggest that what AG has done so far couldn't be done by almost any educated supporter.

I'd be surprised if the debt to AG was still only £30k. That presupposes that since he took over the club have been breaking even and have needed no further cash injections. Given the drop in attendances and the fact pre administration debts are still having to be paid every month I doubt that's the case.

30k is I believe what he paid for the club which is what he is due back. I would not have expected the club to have any debt as yet. In fact given the reasonable attendances and reduced wages bill we may even be running at a profit.

In all honestly i'd love to see the club in the hands of the supporters and perhaps a little naively believe that all sports clubs should look to be run in the same manner.

Who knows? We are not privvy to the financial affairs so we can only speculate. I think if the club had received the benefit of pre-administration revenues such as shirt sponserships etc and was not saddled with pre-administration debts it was not allowed to write off it might be cash generative but such as things are my guess is the opposite is true. Although perhaps offloading Jeffries has eased some cash pressure as I think he was one of the top earners.

AG did state during his address at ceder court that the club has taken up more time and a lot more money than he expected, so its probably fair to say he's put in more than 30K . Whether this is in the form of directors loans or he is just putting in the money out of the goodness of his heart is unknown.

Excellent new i was begging for abit of good news and now we have some.

. I was also hoping for a announcement regarding this as I thought we must be close.

I have no doubt he has put money in and more than he expected. Trinity is a financial sponge IMO because it's aspirations cannot be matched at the moment by it's attributes. That is what took Ted down and despite all his best intentions and well meant words will do the same to AG. Three years with no NM and thus no chance of SL will drain the life out of him - ditto if we stay in SL and don't get NM ASAP.

I honestly believe AG will need deep pockets to pull us through this in the short term. The members lottery is a good boost but I'm afraid he will need to match it with his own for the foreseeable. If we are to retain a SL set up all be it on a reduced scale IMO we will not be able to do this on Championship money alone.This is not pro Ted or anti Glover just a fact as I see it.

How the hell do we keep or sign the best young uns if we are not in SL

Did I read the website wrong?
It appears to say to me that we are close to hitting the initial target of 1873 (the number not the club membership scheme) so we are still nowhere near the 5000 members target.
I hope to be corrected but that's just how I read it.

We already had around 3,500 so either you have read it wrong or the article is not written clearly.

Thanks. I'm glad to be corrected on this one.
It just reads to me that they are choosing a winner from the next thirty for the 1873rd member which will then get that specific number on their membership card.
''Club 1873 are delighted to announce that we are now just 30 memberships away from our initial target of 1873!''
Surely that should read we are now just 30 memberships away from our initial target of 5000! ?????
I must read too much into things, that's just how it sounded to me.

I read it as 30 away from 1873.

3500 + 1873 - 30 = 5343, so that ticks another stupid box.

I disagree with that. I think the heart will always rule the head when it comes to running your own club.

correct it needs to be run by a business man that has feelings for the club but can split the difference between sport and work

I know if I was running the club, I'd go for the glory rather than the sensible option! I imagine Ted did this once or twice, and we all know that Peter Risdale did it at Leeds United.

I completely agree. There is a place for fans input but there is no way they should ever run the club.

Your exactly right Snowie, all companies have to be structured and run efficiently as a business.
Although you would always want your chairman to be a passionate supporter and not just a hard faced business man/woman who ran the club purely to maximise profit.

Sun shining in your house Phil?

Im fairly confident that the CEO of B&Q is not an avid fan of DIY.
What he is, is a bloody good business man, who wants to do his job the best that he can.
SL is a business now more than a sport, so we need as good a business man as we can, forget anyone with a passion for rugby.

I'm sorry but that is so niave IMHO. Running a RL club is not like running most normal businesses We don't produce nut and bolts or pies that we sell at a fixed cost. If RL is a business then it's more akin to a record label and we know how fragile they can be. If it was that straight forward just employ an Accountant to run it. What you need IMO to run a successful RL club is a real Businessman who can work the product and a RL man who knows the game and won't continually have his pants pulled down by the like of Hetherington - oh and a decent accountant.

No way can you run a RL club like a business, there is far to much blind faith required in some very young men for that to ever work.
.

I used to agree, but the way SL is run, its not about the field of play anymore, its about filling in forms, having a ground you neither own, or need, and playing spin doctoring.
I concede a politician may be more useful than a businessman.

Yes that's true but it is IMO still only half the story.

The old regime was at it's best and it had it's moments was when Ted was Chairman and drove things, Eric Timmins held the purse strings and Steve Ferres was in charge of Rugby stuff. There was a balance there and whenever one went missing usually Steve it would go t*ts up. Running a RL club IMO is still very specialised and requires a lot of insider knowledge. It's just not like running B&Q or Yorkshire Windows as AG is finding out.

Just to make my point, would the Chairman of B&Q ever be expected or even contemplate voluntarily leaving his best sites and take a 50% drop (at least) in income despite the fact his business group was doing well? That is basically the case in SL.