Since Leigh gained promotion there has been several comments about jealous supporters and loud mouthed owners so I thought it would be good to ask the simple question of whether supporters would prefer to be in SL with a (let's be honest)opinionated owner such as Degsy or Koucash or have a less hands-on and ambitious owner. This is a simple yes/no, there is no I'd like an owner to pour in unlimited funds but keep quiet option.

We've been in SL and we've been in the Championship and I know which I prefer. If it means having a loud mouth in charge so be it.

I'd take a Degsy. Someone who's a bit embarrassing but you know he has a genuine love for the club so will do what's right by it.
Koukash I'd rather avoid. I still remain to be convinced that he sees it as anything but a play thing. The fact he keeps coming out and saying he hasn't decided if he's staying just means fans don't know where they stand and are in a constant state of worry about what's going to happen in the near future. I'd rather have someone sensible without millions than him.

I just want stability. I honestly would not care what league we were in if I knew the club could survive in it long term. But the fact is that this sport is not big enough in this country to be able to handle all of these divisions and clubs - full time - without owners bankrolling clubs to varying degrees.

So unfortunately, the only way to get rid of that looming anxiety is to have someone with a ton of cash sat at the head of the table. Sometimes they are a bit mental like Degs and Marwan, but the supporters of those clubs just take the negatives on the chin and sleep easy at night.

Koukash seems happy to float Salford but wants to see some support from the fans. He would have had this at Bradford. Seems a shame the RFL scared him away from the Bulls in the first place.

I wouldn't say Salford fans are sleeping easy. Not the ones who are actually still turning up anyway. Marwan gobbing off at every opportunity that he hasn't decided if he'll stay or go doesn't do anything to assure those fans that they're going to be secure in the short term, never mind long term.

Short of a supporter coming up trumps on a Euromillions rollover the chances of a rich owner coming in diminish further every day. It would surely have happened a long time ago.

It can only ever be a play thing with rugby league, there's simply no money to be made - either through the operational side of the business or through corporate spin-offs. That's where the big money is in football for example - all the deals that can be done using the club as a conduit.

Rugby clubs are mainly playthings for rich owners. Those that are prepared to throw money away on RL are either wealthy enough not to be bothered or a bit daft or both. Sensible super rich types don;t tend to throw money away so in the hunt for a backer you'll most likely end up with someone who's got a few rough edges like Derek or Marwan.

Unless you're in a big city with lots of up to date corporate facilities you can't survive without a sugar daddy.

I voted Yes, but just on the general principle of a rich sugar daddy. I might be able to put up with Beaumont, but regardless of how I would feel about a committed but totally embarrassing one like Koukash, the example of Salford's fanbase (actual and potential) and their obvious and blatant rejection of him at the helm seems to me clear evidence that having a wealthy benefactor isn't necessarily everything.

There's no obvious reason why only Salford's 'hardcore' support would turn out for a crunch playoff match with Fev, but if that is the hardcore then what can he (or anyone) do with 1000 people bothering to turn up? Reminds me of Northern's darkest days, and that didn't end well.

Nah. I'd rather have a club forever that lives within their means. Not having to go through administrations, buy outs, Sugar daddies leaving or dying.

Don't matter what league we play in as long as we place and emphasis on community and local talent.

Yes, but one with sense who can set up the club to be self sufficient through varied revenue streams. The Hudds model is a destined for disaster at some point

No 'buts'. You have to take what you get.