Sad day for Progress and Expansion

Quote: gutterfax "Wrong!
I questioned the Validity of Mr Ryan Whitcut as a fit and proper person to run a SL club and guess what......... I was right
Wrong. you quoted a previous poster that lead to the facts about Whitcut. if you had left it there then fine, as you say it was pretty obvious and anybody could draw an unfit person conclusion from that public information, but no you had to troll on.

But good, finally an answer from you about the multi owner model, which however you could have made on redamberblack instead of wittering on about big trucks and T'pau etc, (which you still are!!!). The person you obsessed about, Whitcut, has played his role in getting three investors in, and gone once the RFL were happy. In retrospect the RFL must have said based on the same info, that Whitcut was not fit when the initial plans were put in, hence the time taken to build the investor base and present the final plan. The previous two owners were not multi owners, true Hood was a minority shareholder with until the last minute an inactive majority of shareholders -Caisley, OK was the sole owner but hardly a sugar daddy as was stated when he took over.

Why my obsession with this? Because there has to be an alternative to the sugar daddy model for clubs without one such as Bradford, London, etc. For Bradford, if it works when we are short of £600k sky money then it will do when we get it back. The critical factor/flaw is the unity between the multiple owners, as evidenced by Hood and Caisley, however with a newco a fast exit that does not affect the club can be written into the shareholder agreement, which is presumably what is going on right now.

So for London, would a multi owner model be better?