Quote ="Adeybull"I think the reason will be because too many people believe that all our troubles stem from that, and both Hetherington and Caisley are concerned not to be painted as the bad guys.
I hope it DOES come out. Because then I expect people will see that indeed it was not just Harrisgate that caused it. Indeed, I suspect the settlement with Leeds will have been far smaller than many assume (and may help explain why Hood chose to settle). But it still will have contributed badly - but then so did the rubbish performances on the park and the Great Recession and Scumbag Orford & Mimmis - a veritable cocktail of adverse factors cumulating in where we are now.
But I also hope that they disclose the total legal and other related costs, and the likely legal etc costs had we carried on, so we see the whole picture. Bet we don't see that, since it would not be in either party's interest - just that of the previous board, of which of course Coulby and Brutus Agarius were then members, with together far more shares than Hood, so were jointly responsible for the decision to settle.
And I remain very interested to hear from both parties regarding what information about Harris' contractual arrangements was actually provided before he was signed, since that remains for me the key issue, and the only reason I can deduce that could have undermined the "Mainstream Developments" defence that I felt was so strong for us. But I am very certain we'll never hear anything about that.'"
For once, I agree.
In saying that, the finite contractual details we won't be privy to, and possibly, rightly so. Its a little too car crash tv and more importantly such situations are rarely played out in a media headlight. Samsung and iPhone don't discuss the miniscuke details of their patent battles, merely the effect of the action. It's not how business works or should work.
In saying that no business should have an obsessive 6 years ago indecent based theorem of cause and effect, since we should be looking at other factors in addition as you say, not least that of significantly increasing revenues, since as you advocate, cost cutting only does what it says on the tin and does not categorically create an upsurge in revenues.
I doubt legal costs will be revealed by many sporting organisations or effective businesses (yes we're not right now
) since it is a necessary 'evil' and nor am I too concerned. I'm more concerned as to potential interesting detail that may be revealed to us regarding what we have been led to believe has been the sole and determining factor in our plight. We shall see.
As for your last point re VAT on season tickets, you rightly use the word potential. Incredibull aka, previous BoD, was categorical that this didn't exist at all. Well, as I suggested, it clearly does. It's not about "I told you so" it's about, look at this bloody mess and who on earth wants to take on mass historic debt that shouldn't be there. Hey go, it's done now, let's get to point Z and to a positive starting point.