Leeds United"s owners spoken fit and correct but can sojourn unknown Football The Guardian

Ken Bates arrives at Elland Road in Jan 2005 after shopping in to the debt-ridden afterwards Championship club. Photograph: Ian Hodgson/REUTERS

Politicians from the 3 main parties and football supporters" groups have assimilated in job for the Football League to have open who owns the clubs after the joining authorized as "fit and proper" the offshore owners of Leeds United whilst keeping their temperament private.

The sports minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, said: "Fans of any football bar have a right to know who the owners are. We wish to see larger believer illustration in the using of football clubs and far larger accountability. The League should demand on clubs creation open to their supporters who owns them."

He was assimilated by the Conservative shade sports minister, Hugh Robertson, who argued: "As with Parliament and most alternative areas of open life, clarity is going to be an augmenting order and expectation. That includes publicly identifying the owners of football clubs. Football should remodel the governance, to embody larger believer illustration on the house of clubs."

• What you should know about your club"s owners• Politicians and fans on the tenure issue• All the idealisation from David Conn"s Inside Sport blog

That call was echoed by the Liberal Democrat MP for Harrogate, Phil Willis, who has prolonged criticised the anonymity of Leeds" ownership, routed around companies in offshore taxation havens. "At the really least, supporters of a bar have a right to know who owns it. As an action of conviction and goodwill, I goal the Leeds United house right away discuss it the support they have presented to the Football League so that all clarity of poser can be removed."

The Premier League does right away need the clubs to discuss it the names of all shareholders with stakes of 10% or more, but the Football League does not. Instead, clubs contingency discuss it the League"s chairman, Lord Mawhinney, and 3 alternative comparison executives, who the idealisation owners are, but the report is not done public.

Leeds have declined requests from the Guardian, following the League"s ratification, to contend who the idealisation owners are. The usually reply this week came from Peter Boatman of Château Fiduciare, the Geneva-based monetary executive of Leeds" holding company, Forward Sports Fund. "It is not required for you to have that information," he said.

The politicians were assimilated by the Leeds United Supporters Club, the inhabitant Football Supporters" Federation and Supporters Direct in job for League clubs" owners to be publicly identified. "Like all football clubs, Leeds United"s impression is that of a open establishment wrapped in a secretly owned commercial operation and that creates a mismatch," pronounced Dave Boyle, the arch senior manager of Supporters Direct. "The authorities can recognize that open inlet by promulgation a pure message: you can sojourn a in isolation unknown citizen, and you can own a football club, but you cannot do both."

Boatman was declared last May as an FSF executive and reliable this week he had upheld the fit and correct chairman test. He forked to the swell Leeds have done on the margin and financially this season, and pronounced questions about who owns the bar would be seen as unwelcome critique with the bar pulling for promotion. He combined that no report has been funded from the League.

Summing up Leeds" on all sides underneath the stream ownership, Boatman said: "The incident at the football bar has softened immensely, that is really gratifying when a little alternative clubs are in critical monetary trouble. We have never denied report to the Football League and nonetheless I cannot endorse or repudiate who the shareholders are, the usually thing I can contend about the structures we carry out is that they are all on top of board."

The League"s capitulation of Leeds" owners follows inquiries it began in Oct after the Guardian suggested that the club"s chairman, Ken Bates, had revised his criticism of the tenure at a justice box in Jersey. In Jan last year, Bates" solicitors told Jersey"s stately court, that is conference a brawl in between Leeds and a monetary company, Admatch, that he and his prolonged tenure monetary adviser, Patrick Murrin, mutually owned "management shares" in the club"s holding company, the Forward Sports Fund.

In May, Bates swore an confirmation saying that the prior make a difference had been "not correct" and "an blunder on my part". In fact, he stated, he did not own a government share in FSF. The confirmation trustworthy a minute from Château Fiduciare, that pronounced FSF had 10,000 shares, owned by shareholders who have not been named.

The League reliable it had created to Leeds looking construction since directors and 30% shareholders in the clubs contingency be identified to it and upheld as fit and correct people who have no new rapist philosophy and have not run a football bar in to penury twice. The League done no serve criticism until a orator pronounced last month: "The Football League has resolved the enquiries per Leeds United"s fit and correct persons exam support and has addressed the issues lifted with the club. Following serve report from Leeds, the League is right away confident that the bar is agreeable with Football League regulations."

No serve sum have been released. Sutcliffe this week concurred the moves the League has done in securing minute monetary report from clubs and requiring superb taxation to be paid, but pronounced "more can still be done" to have clubs some-more transparent. A League source pronounced clubs now have "no appetite" to deliver a order requiring their owners to be done public.

Mawhinney, who is due to retire this month after 7 years in that he has overseen a array of reforms, did prove that he believes the League should go further. "We have come a prolonged way," he said. "Clubs cannot fool around in the joining unless we know who the profitable owners are. Could we do more? Yes – but it is a make a difference of priorities. Eventually I think football will be strengthened if the tenure of clubs goes public."