There's a very careful balance here between identifying the critical weaknesses at the club, determining what realistic options there may be moving forward and logically, identifying the depth and reason from any financial black hole before feeding the desire for information to supporters.

We live in an age of immediate news media whether it be here twitter, Facebook or fans forums. But that comes with dangers of nigh on every fan or consumer thinking their specific viewpoint has some business validity, when unfortunately, bar a few exceptions, very few have.

CC, RA and SC will seemingly carry out any review before revealing their poker hand. To do otherwise would be competely foolhardy. It's that simple.

What is clear is that as a club we have very few alternative options, I for one, would rather see the outcome of their assessment before passing comment. Given that, good luck to them. Bagging them prior to or during a review is quite simply, daft.

Some fair point there and as you say it's difficult to speculate given the relativity of track record of some involved.

What I would say is I find the RFL's judgement of CC to not be fit and proper is somewhat ironic given that they have given away prestigious headline sponsorship of the flagship competition for nothing. Literally. That they feel they can criticise someone who has built up a multi million pound business and represents the likes of Theo Walcott, Steve McLaren, Alex Oxlade Chamberlain and even the current Rangers takeover by Brian Kennedy, is beautifully ironic. Nigel Wood, has my utter contempt as an individual and a CEO of a major sport.

That aside, it would be simply foolish for the potential roll out of the board to be revealed, given that logically, no review has even been carried out as yet. It does however seem clear that a pragmatic and effective way forward is what the new regime is angling towards with transparency when it is prudent to do so. Revealing levels of debt or otherwise would make no sense with investors keen to see an outcome prior to commitment.

Similarly, I'm not certain Nobby carrying out an independent review of the football side of the club necessarily leads to his appointment as head coach. Similarly with Tasker or CCs involvement. What is clear is there are names with both a track record of success and the ability to change the landscape if it's needed. Quite how existing members of the staff may fit in remains to be seen. Some are clearly very good at their roles, others perhaps past their best or simply not upto the job. What is clear is that there will be change. It's about time. We've p*ssed about living on the Bulls dream for too long with zero substance.

As you say our , speculation is just that.

Strangest bit was where CC is apparently to become a 'consultant'; this the bloke who thought going for Iestyn Harris was a good idea...! Still, as I've posted before, hopefully he will have learnt lessons from previous mistakes, so let's hope for the best.

Well, I for one never believed that there is any rich backer, on either side.

That is, I'm sure both sides will have had a number of discussions with parties who they hoped could be persuaded, but the problem we have is the difference between acquiring (1) a rich backer who sees their funds as in any way at all some sort of "investment"; and (2) a rich backer who just wants the club to succeed and is prepared to throw away large sums of money to that end.

No (2) has ever been sighted in these parts, not even a fleeting rear glimpse in the woods, and there are not even rumours of the existence of one.

And anyone of type (1) looking at it as a straight business investment in the harsh light of day would obviously conclude that it just isn't one. No club is.

A decent sponsor or two wouldn't go amiss, but IMHO that's the best we can hope for. I can't see any backer wanting to do their cash in, in large amounts, perrennially, riding into the fray any time soon.

Where does that leave us? Well, until Robin Hood does arrive, having to cut our cloth accordingly, and stop pretending that we can compete on a level playing field with the likes of Wire, as without a (2), it is pie in the sky. I can see ways in which an administration can be avoided - although I put the chances at no better than 50-50 - but I can only see us as a selling club for the foreseeable.

Musical chairs with various levels of personnel may occur, and is all very well, but money is the one commodity that could make the real difference, and it's the one thing we have neither got, nor look in danger of getting.

Never have I hoped more that I am wrong. I hope the new Board have a Euromillions sydicate going, you never know.

On Adey's post, it was Coulby who said CC wanted to step down earlier due to a young family and was persuaded to stay on.
Plus his role as a sports agent maybe conflicted were he to take up a directorship. perhaps he's in the proces of resolving this now.

On GB's post I agree that neither Tasker or Noble's input would necessarily mean they were looking for a long term role. Both are lifelong Northern/Bulls fans probably as sad as we are at what has befallen us.

I think perhaps we've all analysed the Harris saga to the enth degree. We've all made significant errors in business; however the further up the ladder the bigger the fall. Hood also made serious mistakes (hence where we are now) but bashing these folks when it suits the mantra isn't the positive energy that is needed right now. Clean slate and all that.

As for Ducketts long term involvement, it would be foolish to lose his skills and ability to conduct himself impeccably in a sandstorm. I'm not sure he will remain CEO but that's no bad thing providing his replacement is high quality.

As Maislebugs said, a poster whom I seem to agree on most things, both Noble and Tasker are lifelong Bulls/Northern fans with extremely strong track records. I think their "agenda" is quite simply objectively review and take it from there. And that for me, is perfect sense.

I'd honestly not read too much into the wording, and certainly nothing sinister. Its almost certainly codespeak for explaining how CC can play a very major role now, without actually being on the board and having director responsibilities and laibilities, IMO. Quite common for someone to be brought in as a "consultant" for form's sake, but with the possibility or intent or aspiration of ultimately taking on executive responsibilities - in fact, that is exactly how I ended up in my own present role...!

What I truly hope, going forward, is that we have a board and/or executive team that together have the skills and expertise and experience that befits an operation of this scale and nature. And each their own man (or woman) and not just yes-men. In recent years we have clearly been desperately constrained by lack of money, leading IMO to too few capable people being asked to spread themselves far too thinly. Whether any sugar daddy will manifest himself to resolve this problem as it has for Wire and Pies and Hudds and Hull etc is pretty debatable IMO.

Inceidentally, I forgot to mention above that another reason CC may not be able to determine his future role just now is the potential conflict of interest being a player's agent. Not sure how say a Leeds player would feel if his manager was the chairman of a rival club! This might not be a five minute job to sort out, so its another reason why undue speculation is probably futile and counter-productive right now.

And I see that while I was typing MB already made the point re CC's existing commitments. And thanks to him for noting where the young family comments had come from - I knew I'd read it on the T&A but could not remember whetehr it was from forum posts or in an article

Speaking of 'expertise', what do we know about Stephen Coulby and Roland Agar?

I've heard their names before, obviously, but I don't know anything about them. What expertise in business, marketing, strategic skills etc, do they bring to the situation?

The issue of CC being a plaers' agent is a big elephnat in the room and should not be underestimated. Personally I can't see how you could be a director, and at the same time an agent of a club player, as there seems to be potential for an utterly hopeless conflict of interests.

I was never comfortable with one of our largest shareholders being the agent for the likes of Sam, but it's legal, and that's a personal matter for the shareholder, who has no duties towards the club, unlike a director. (Nor in Sam's case was it instrumental as he'd have gone whoever his agent was.)

Does anyone know if a club director can under RFL rules also be a players' agent? If they can, I still don't think they should.

I'm not sure a sugar daddy is a prudent way forward. But then, nor should we ignore a "gimme"

An effective business model where in absolutely simplistic terms, we are earning more than we are spending doesn't require George Osbournes input. Far too many sporting entities are highly ineffective in this country and wouldn't survive in any other business sector.

As for CCs family commitment, we all have those and we can all re-adjust those for the right opportunities. It's a flexible term by its definition of timescale, that is, his young children have grown up somewhat. His choice either way I suppose.

The issue of being a player agent I don't see as being an issue, should a player from a "rival" club not deem it to be one. There's also an assumption that he will continue this in an RL capacity as opposed to the focus of his core agent work in football and RU. The sale of Sam Burgess probably secured our future longer than we realise. Either way, I can't see it being an issue unless the geniuses at the RFL determine otherwise, and them taking on a solicitor would be brave, or players in RL he represents have an issue with it. Right now, I don't feel it's a core element in the impending review.

Roland Agar is a wholesale butcher. He owns the slaughterhouse in Ilkley and has a sizeable wholesale meat business, and so I suspect is a no-nonsense real-world businessman. He also has very active involvement with the academy.

I have seen it said that coulby is a banker or similar, but know nothing of his background or expertise.

I am quite sure it is NOT a prudent way forward!

But, sadly, unless the new board can come up with some new business model that has hitherto escaped the rest of the competition, I fear its the only way we'll ever challenge for the top 4 again in the foreseeable future. Either way, if a sugar daddy chooses to present himself, I'd be entirely happy for the club to take whatever was on offer.

He'll know all about slaughtering bulls then.

Agree entirely. I argued at the time this placed our own board in an impossible position and I wonder if with hindsight they wished they'd resigned there and then forcing CC into the open.

The players will be ok for burgers then. Maybe we can tempt Solomona back with an offer he couldn't refuse.

Indeed, but such a business model in the context of an SL team won't win any pots, and will not be acceptable to the fans. By which I mean it will be a business model that will leave you permanently moored near the bottom of the league, with ever diminishing crowds.

It is totally unreasonable for fans to fail to accept that a team must live within its means, but that's fans for you. The fans say that, if you run a club, you must "make the full salary cap available" to your coach, and whenever a top player becomes available, you are expected to splash the cash.

Fans should always remember the 17th chapter of the book of jobe: "[iblessed is he who doth not expect - for he shall not be disappointed" [/i

True. But that makes an assumption that said business model is ineffective to the point of being unable to provide the above. I'm not sure that's the case. Whilst Warrington, Huddersfield and Wigan may have a sugar daddy in situ, only one of those have actually become champions. What is clear is that how we have sliced our salary cap cake has been crumbly at best in recent years. And that's being polite.

Splashing the cash may have had validity at Warrington and to a degree Huddersfield, but the youth production models at Leeds, Saints and even Wigan have greater context and application in modern sport. Hull FC have a plethora of overseas players and ones gleaned for other clubs, it's not done them a right lot of good.

The caveat being a business structure with a balance of salary cap spend in sync with the bottom line isn't going to be too far away. How that translates into perceived success depends on how astute our player recruitment and retention is. It couldn't be much worse that recent years.

Rowland Agar unfortunately is not a suitable person these days in my book,

I thought Coulby was in Marketing? according to some Company House details re the Bulls

On what basis do you suggest Roland Agar is unsuitable?

Why would anyone who does not support the club give up time/effort and money? The people who have taken over, just like the last board do it for the club and not to make money. Even a Bulls post administration would not be wortha great deal to anyone!!

Some of the criticism of the new BOD and Brian Noble is appaling.

Lets support the new guys from a perspective that they care and want the club to be successful.

Unfortunately the "guys" are not new and are the same ones that left the Club in a financial mess in 2006

They have, if you can keep your players. IMHO and despite the mauling McNamara and Potter (until recently) received, we have brought through and are bringing through a crop of youngsters to rival anybody. All other things being equal, we could have had, and given resources still could have, the makings of a bright future.



But we already know how to achieve success, we achieved success to rival anybody. The problem we had, and the problem Wigan et al will eventually face, is that your excellent squad will sooner or later fall into decline and you will fall from grace, and then you need to find a way to keep the pot boiling until your rebuilt squad can compete at the top again.

However you are vulnerable both to predators (cf Sam Burgess [iet al[/i), young player assessment / management mistakes (cf Ryan Atkins, Chris Bridge [iet al[/i) and experienced player mistakes (cf Menzies, Pryce, Peacock [iet al[/i).

It is extremely hard to get near the top, and to be at the top or thereabouts, over a consistent period, is the hardest thing of all, but you can fall from grace badly in a minute, and we are the proof of that.

Oh, and it always helps if you don't discharge one barrel of your shotgun into each of your own feet.

Well that's nice and positiv.

You also haven't explained your assertion that Roland Agar isn't suitable to be on the board.