For a champion of objectivity, your pious condescending nature of that particular post is poor form.

Caisley has not uttered a word on his proposals or ambitions. Has not told us why he did not contribute to the pledge. In short I can see his smirking smile looking on happily at our demise.But why Chris, WHY?

No.

Whether anyone bringing that about should be banned from the human race is a separate issue.

Personally I don,t believe it was even significant, let alone crucial but never mind. I,d also suggest that people within the club have briefed against Caisley for years. You;ve been around business and that stuff gives off a terrible smell that sponsors, corporate buyers etc don,t like or want to be associated with. They like success stories, not the wives of Chairmen approaching tables and telling them vocifirously that "noone knows the full story" etc etc or the employees of the club actively "getting the message out".

Caisley has been a divisive figure but his vilification through word of mouth and message board gossip has done the club huge damage. Alongside the performances on the pitch, the brand has become a toxic association.

What we have acheived under Caisley is a 100% accurate picture of exactly what is needed for this club to survive. Hood and Bennett's numbers were out by about half a million quid!

Possible time line:

1.Hood says we need £1m, but £750k will get us thru season. Pledge wont be called unless we can realistically get that, with £500k needed immediately.

2. pledge looks like being successful.

3. Caisley has his 2penneth worth about Hood and the board. pledge slows down.

4. pledge almost gets there, club call in the pledges (How much was actually given??)

5. Hood and Bennett leave 2 weeks after Caisley , Coulby et al call for an EGM

6. Caisley says he has the 800k needed.

7. Coulby / Caisley appoint Guilfoyle to oversee finances.

8. ( intent to enter admin ) Guilfoyle says club need another £1.2m to get thru season and then will have to cull the playing and non playing staff.

9. with no investment forthcoming, bulls enter admin and have about 10 days to live, unless a buyer is found.



5 and 6 could be in reverse order!

The point is, would Caisley have been so forceful in removing the former board if he'd known that he only had promises for about two thirds of the money needed top keep the club going? In his mind, he'd secured enough to make a successful go of it!

MB: whereas I believe it was highly significant. But we will never agree on this, so best let it lie.

All I can say, with absolute honesty, is that none of the previous board ever briefed against Caisley to me in any way. Nor do I recall seeing any such briefing in the media. quite the opposite, in fact. Indeed, on numerous occasions over recent years I have felt frustrated because it seemed clear there was more to be said regarding why we were where we were. I will repeat that in any discussions with me, Hood was always both gentlemanlike and unwilling to be drawn on personalities. So if there was any briefing going on from Hood, I can honestly say I saw none of it.

Caisley's statements in the media, by contrast, are a matter of public record. And it seems inconceivable that some of the stuff appearing on Internet forums cannot have originated in his camp, IMO, so it all reeks of hypocrisy to me.

And, as with Hood, my own views of Caisley were formed largely by personal observation, plus having felt very badly misled and let down having previously given him vociferous support in the face of very hostile criticism across the RL community.

But, between the lot of them and regardless of fault, The major shareholders - the whole lot of them - have brought the Bulls to their knees. They all should be heartedly ashamed of themselves, but the time to hold the inquests should not be now, when survival is what really matters. Sadly, the blame game is already well underway and seems set to get much worse. I just hope the Titanic deck chair attendants can sleep at nights.