Sent personally by C S Caisley on behalf of shareholders of the Company holding more than 50% of the issued share capital in the Company

Peter

Further to our discussion this morning and our later discussion at 1.10 pm today, I attach copies of the letter and accompanying memorandum that were hand-delivered to the Company's office earlier today on behalf of the shareholders referred to in the memorandum. You have confirmed that the original was received at the Company's office. However, It seems that article 103 was deleted and replaced with a requirement under article 104 (A) to pass an ordinary resolution for the removal of a director before the expiration of his period of office.

Notwithstanding that shareholders of more than 50% of the issued share capital ("the majority shareholders"icon_wink.gif require you and Mr Bennett to be removed from office you have made it clear on behalf of yourself and Mr Bennett that you have no intention of standing down because you believe that the best interests of the Company will be served by you remaining in office on the ground that you are in negotiations with people who have indicated an interest in investing in the Company. You said that these "potential investors" fell into 2 camps, i.e. those who were prepared to buy the Club from an Administrator and those who may be prepared to invest in the Company to help the Company to resolve its financial difficulties and thus prevent an administration. From your recent media comments it is reasonable to assume that you have received no tangible interest from the latter.

I indicated to you that the majority shareholders wished to take immediate steps to prevent the Company entering into administration by presenting a viable business plan, securing investment to enable the Company to pay its debts and preventing the loss of the Club's star players. You said that if an Administrator had to be appointed then it was not something you wanted or are planning for but something which will have been unavoidable. I said that you had earlier told me that if you did not attract new money of a sum which you had in mind by the weekend the Company would be placed into administration by next Tuesday. I asked whether, if you raised £400,000 and not £500,000 (your published requirement) by Saturday of this week the Company would be placed into administration, and you replied that £400,000 would not be sufficient but £600,000 would cause you to reflect which I took to mean that if you were to raise less than £600,000 the Company's Directors would more than likely appoint an Administrator. I pointed out that according to my information, even if you were to raise £1m by the end of April the Company would still suffer substantial month on month losses going forward. You agreed and said there would have to be significant expenditure cuts.

It is clear under all the circumstances that you and Mr Bennett are continuing in office against the wishes of the majority shareholders; further, that the very recent short notice to all of the Company's shareholders, via the media, of the Company's need for £1m of new money has given all concerned very little time to react to the situation. Also, when you agreed to sell the Company's lease of the stadium to the RFL it is very strange that the RFL saw fit to immediately take back the majority of the consideration paid in order to receive repayment of its loan. Presumably this is because they were concerned at that time about the Company's financial standing. I have further noted the apparent discrepancy between your media comments regarding RBS calling in the overdraft and their version of events. Nonetheless the bank has already received repayment of a large slice of the overdraft over the past couple of months.

Peter, there are a good many reasons why the Company should not be placed into administration if at all possible, including the damage it would do to the reputation of the Club and the inevitable questions that would be raised as to the RFL's knowledge of the Company's financial status, and why the majority shareholders should be given the opportunity to provide a solution to the Company's present financial difficulties.

I still believe that you and Mr Bennett should accede to the wishes of the majority shareholders and I would ask you to give further thought to so doing. However, if you will not do so then under all the circumstances and on behalf of the majority shareholders I ask that the Company's Directors do forthwith give notice to all of the Company's shareholders to convene an extraordinary general meeting to pass an ordinary resolution under Article 104 (A) that you and Mr Bennett be immediately removed as Directors of the Company. Please confirm that you will act in accordance with this request.

If notwithstanding what I have said on behalf of the majority shareholders you decide to proceed to give notice of an intention to appoint an Administrator then:

1) I should be pleased if you would ensure that the majority shareholders receive a copy of the notice;
2) please note that it will be the intention of the majority shareholders to challenge the appointment on the basis that it would be a bad faith appointment given the circumstances outlined above;
3) the majority shareholders will hold the Directors personally responsible for any losses thereby caused.

Regards.

Chris Caisley

F+*k me

When was this sent?

Sounds like it was sent in the run up to Good Friday IMO.

So, unless I am very much mistaken, it appears that the last thing CC wants is administration?

Nice letter, is it genuine? and why release it now, over a month after it was written and delivered ?

The cynic in me would suggest that this could be a stunt....

Genuine? Or fake?

wording certainly sounds pretty genuine. Not sure what anyone gains by leaking it now though.

A cunning stunt.

Incredibullman has few posts most of which are pro-Hood and anti-CC. It would be quite a about turn to fabricate a letter which present CC trying to save the club from admin, in the face of a Chair who is accused of strongly indicating admin is inevitable without any reference to the shareholding whatsoever. He also claims to have high level contacts at the club.

If what this letter and Coulby also accuses is true, it's a wonder Hood isn't in Linfield Mount. The whole thing amounts to one of the most bizarre tales I've ever heard.

Touché

Indeed, I agree that it looks genuine, both due to the posters credentials, but mainly because you couldn't make it up

Pretty explosive stuff indeed.

If it's not genuine, its one hell of a good fake. And of course Hood and Bennett could challenge it. Or of course it could be an "amended" version of the original - although again that would leave them open to challenge by Hood and Bennett.

I am therefore minded to treat it as genuine, albeit with considerable caution. The language certainly sounds like the man, but there are one or two bits that make me wonder - would a lawyer write "2" rather than "two", for example? I would very much like to know the date though. The reference to "next Tuesday" suggests it was the week before Easter, the same week that CC made his public statement. That would make sense.

IF it is genuine, that then leads us to why leak it now?

The content is, in my view, not particularly inconsistent with what we either already knew or some of us at least had been told, albeit the emphasis is quite different. The one significant point of variance I can see is the following:
[i
"From your recent media comments it is reasonable to assume that you have received no tangible interest from the latter."[/i

That, I note, is a presumption and not a statement of fact. Having been told, face to face, that there were three separate options being pursued, all aimed at avoiding the need for administration, we have a clear difference between the "letter"'s presumption and something we were specifically told (as were others). At this stage, I can add nothing more to that, other than if the directors called the pledges in without reasonable expectation of avoiding administration - which I take as meaning without reasonable expectation of ongoing funding) then they were reckless fools. Or worse - as Maislebugs conjectures. I suspect we will never get to know the truth of it.

I am quite sure that Hood had administrators lined up for the week after Easter -not from what anyone at the club told me, but even so. And, assuming that we were being told the truth about how imminent the threat was (and this "letter" surely confirms that one and for all?" he would have HAD to have had, to avoid trading whilst insolvent. So that part rings very true to me.

That comment about £600k "causing" him to reflect has again led to a supposition in the letter, which on the face of it is understandable. Except of course we know that hood DID call in the pledges and did NOT appoint, therefore one must assume that £500k WAS enough to stave off the immediate threat and therefore the supposition was incorrect? But that is itself a supposition! And does not really tell us much. What an unholy mess.

Here it gets interesting again:

[i"I pointed out that according to my information, even if you were to raise £1m by the end of April the Company would still suffer substantial month on month losses going forward. You agreed and said there would have to be significant expenditure cuts."[/i

I note "according to my information", so that is not necessarily fact. Nevertheless, I am sure it IS correct - just the scale of the losses is never made clear. It has been obvious for ages that expenditure in the current economic situation has been exceeding income, and no amount of one-off funding fixes that. All that WOULD fix it is either new ongoing income streams - which the letter presumes to be ruled out, but we were assured WAS very much the plan (so you takes your choice there) or cost reductions - which could only really come from the playing staff budget.

Otherwise, it all rings pretty much what I would have expected to be honest - including the threat to hold Hood and Bennett personally responsible - I have been raising that issue for weeks now. If Hood was not a frightened man, he probably should have been - damned whatever he did.

A big question I guess is was the wording of the letter intended to future-proof it against whatever might subsequently happen? After all, as has been pointed out there is no assurance of funding or avoidance of administration from Mr Caisley either, just a demand (as a majority of the shareholders were perfectly entitled to make) for Hood and Bennett to step aside so they could see if they could do any better.

Leaking it NOW could be to head off the reaction if they now decide to appoint administrators – they can say that it was never their intention but the actions of the previous board left them no choice. And there is no way of knowing now proving whether that statement would be genuine or otherwise. The wording of the letter leaves them all avenues open. And Hood and Bennett look to have got themselves into a very exposed position.

If this letter IS genuine, then for me the timing is crucial, in all sorts of ways. If it was received AFTER the meeting a group of us had with the board the week before Easter, then it fits in with the Thursday-before-Easter announcement from CC through the T&A. If it was received BEFORE, then I would have a major issue indeed with Mr Hood & Mr Bennett.

But, if it IS genuine, then why did Hood and Bennett not call in the pledges (to stave off administration, as they were obviously sure it would and therefore would presumably be acting in the best interests of the company) and then immediately stand down as a majority of the owners of the business demanded? Instead of hanging on for several weeks leaving everything seemingly in limbo? There seems to be a big case to answer there.

Again, always assuming the letter is genuine in all respects.

What a hell of a way to own and run a business.

And yes, its all so bloody impossible that it must be true.

Aye, under court rule changes of recent times lawyers are supposed to use digits not words. So you'll find litigators use numbers, and probate and conveyancing lawyers tend to write everything out in words




That there seems to be little obvious reason or advantage to anyone to leaking it now is to me a point in favour of it being possibly genuine.


My own nosying about makes me quite sure too.


A bit Machiavellian, but it would certainly be one reasonable motive for the timing of a leak, if leak it be


Indeed. What (a) changed or (b) was achieved in the intervening period, when every man and his dog said that they were dead men walking. I can't offer even a decent guess as to any reason for the timing of it. (The only one that would spring to mind is waiting for a final decision from some backer - but I kinda rule that out as once the EGM was called, in my personal opinion any chance of a backer of what was now the Old Guard designate would be dead in the water..

I think Betfair should run a book on whether it is a kosher letter or not.

You learn something every day! And Caisley is litigation, so it adds to the credibility?

You really would struggle to make it up, wouldn't you?

The 'leaker's previous posts are predominatly in defence of Hood and critical of CC so I can't see how it's been leaked to provide political cover in advance of administration.

What does appear to be 'fact' or as close as something we all agree on is that Hood and Bennet almost certainly had administrators lined up apparently without reference to the other shareholders.

The point about ongoing losses is almost certainly true. This all places Bennett's claim that CC was planning to put the club into administration at the same time that the current board also had plans to do the same in a less than positive light. They were teetering somewhere over the brink of insolvency yet AB inferred that the club was in reasonable financial shape and CC was orchestrating an administration.

In the light of Stephen Coulby's intervention which makes a primie face case against Hood for outright lying, I believe the assurances made to Adey and others about potential investors were at best exagerated and at worst, dishonest. The story PH told about the sale of the ground (which never rang true) and the public statement made by SC are so widely divergent as to demand a response. None has been forthcoming.

Unless the leaker has found it appropriate or necessary to change sides?

But as for "almost certainly had administrators lined up", in my mind it has to be a certainty. As I said, in the situation they explained they were in, if the pledge failed then administration was a certainty. So to NOT have administrators lined up would have been criminally reckless IMO.

And the point about ongoing losses again IMO is a certainty. That was why the previous BoD was seeking additional income sources - to plug that gap.

As I said, nothing new to me there.

The reason I supported the pledge was because it was the only way I could see what I saw as the evil of administration could be avoided.

Not sure how you can conclude that the assurances to us from the BoD were "at best exaggerated and at worst dishonest"? Why not just "optimistic" or "premature" or "over-ambitious"? Or even "reasonably-held expectation"? Not being funny, but I don't know which it was, so I wondered if you knew something I did not?

The statement re the sale of the ground most definitely has a big hole in it, in the light of subsequent events. (The sale of a big hole has a big hole in it...?). Of all the things I'd really like to get the full facts on, that is the biggest - and there are plenty on the list! And THAT is one issue I do feel the BoD - all of them - were at best disingenuous in presenting - to the fans in general, and to me to my face.

On the 'dishonesty' charge, no I don't know anymore than you but in my experience dishonesty is infrequently a one off event but much more likely to be a slow creep of self justification which results in a pattern of deception. I think this is where Peter Hood has found himself.

I don't want to go into details which we've already gone over but the use of confidentiality clauses whilst briefing privately, the narratives around Harris, Orford, the sale of the ground lease, the financial security of the club all involved the stating of one thing in public and a slightly different story on here. Gradually as time went on the gap between what he was saying and the accumulated evidence became larger and larger. People simply don't invest in people who say and do what Peter Hood has said and done.

Ultimately, I feel the Coulby story demonstrates a man who has found himself compelled to move 1 degree from the truth and many years and events later has suddenly found himself at 180' to reality. It's a sad, rather than malicious story of a person who's decieved himself more than anyone else.

I can appreciate your point regarding the appearance of differing and changing stories. Indeed very much fell victim to that over the ground sale - although the story we were told at the forum was backed up to me, ftf, with more detail, by all three directors separately plus Stuart. The fact that both Ryan and Stuart backed the line suggests to me that either they were not fully aware of the situation themselves - which in the case of Ryan at least would surprise me but would then suggest PH was not being open with his own team - or they all saw the need commercially to portray the same picture - in which case you can hardly point the finger just at PH? Is there a fault in my logic there?

You refer also to the Harris and Orford situation, as examples of dishonesty. I suggest neither of those were really any such thing, even if that is how the results may indeed look. I can only try and reach a reasoned conclusion based on what information I have and what deductions I can make, and if I become aware of anything new then I might find I need to change my conclusions. I had to do it over Harrisgate and over the ground sale, and if it becomes necessary I am quite oprepared to do so again. Betre to acknowledge you reached a wrong conclusion based on lack of information than to stick with the argument regardless? But, as it stands, the following is my conclusion on those two issues:

Harris - it was hardly "...gradually as time went on the gap between what he was saying and the accumulated evidence became larger and larger..." though, was it? One day we were contesting the case with Leeds and were assured we had a strong case, the next (and to my utter astonishment and horror at the time) we were suddenly told that we had folded. Nothing gradual about that, I submit, just a sudden [ivolte face[/i? And, as far as I can gather from a number of sources, the reason was because of changes in the circumstances that meant the club's lawyers advised the directors that the club was facing an existential crisis if they continued to contest. Some people have posted on here and elsewhere what they understsand was the principal development that brought this about, but I have no firm evidence tyhat i could prove one way or the other and am not dumb enough to risk defamation. But even to win but with both parties standing their own costs looked likely to bankrupt the club, based on my understanding of the sort of costs involved. And, incidentally, I never once spoke to PH about Harris (until, in fact, the meeting we had just before Easter) - what I learned that came from the club came from others.

Orford? I have told you in PM in the past why I was assured (again, not by PH, ever) that the club had to move its position as time went on. And you therefore know full well why I cannot post that on here. I so so wish I could, since it would probably give people a rather different perspective on what happened to at least take into consideration. And, incidentally, I was able to cross-reference the story from elsewhere - there are seemingly leakers at Red Hall, as we found over last autumn where there were rumours apparently coming out of Red Hall about "a big Yorkshire club" being in financial difficulties. Again, I would argue that the changing (and frustrating) changes in the position coming out of the club reflected developing circumstances, particularly when that scumbag of a manager of his (who, you will note, has been suspended by the NRL for six months for major dishonesty, so you really do pick a poor example...) realised that the club was not just going to let Orford go back home with no consequences and was telling the truth.

As I have said regularly, I hold no brief for Hood. I formed the view, a few years ago and indeed from the first time I ever sat in a meeting with him, that he seemed somewhat lightweight and naïve - and most certainly in comparison with his predecessor, whom no-one could ever accuse of being either! - but also probably fairly genuine in his motives. That remains my view to this day, until and unless I receive better information, and to a fair extent therefore I think your last sentence may well be fairly close to the truth.

The timing is definitely that Thursday, Caisley says that recent media comments indicate that there are no investors. Hood had on Tuesday the 3rd said that although they were in discussion with a number of parties, nobody was in sight at the moment, that not got to £250k yet, 1660 individuals (ie a relatively small number of Members) had pledged and the response from the business community had been poor. on the 4th he said £248 k pledged with much more to come in, and that he was reluctant to cash in the pledges unless the clubs survival can be guaranteed after the current liabilities had been met. Thursday that letter. So hardly surprising that Hood extended teh deadline, Duckett announced on the 11th that there were talks with investors, on the 14th talking to 2 potential investors, on the 19th 3 opportunities plus Caisley. Also on teh 19th if Peter and I cannot find the investors we will stand aside 22nd Caisley says he has the money, good, 3rd May Coulby stated the investors were not factually supported, 9th resigned.

so it looks to me as if Caisleys intervention was based on the belief that there were no investors, which if you believe the PR was not the case until much later. Equally Caisely seems not to have any money lined up, despite allegedly telling Hood that he had before the 9th May when Hood resigned. So it comes down to both of them not wanting to go into admin or sell players, which both require a rabbit being pulled out of a hat: the first "Bulls Chairmans Have Got Talent" contestant failed to produce the rabbit, can the Amazing Conjuring Caisley do it and will it be big enough to feed the black hole of Odsal?

No, I wouldn't call the Harris, Orford situs outright dishonesty, more a Blairite management of the story through public and private channels. What I do believe though is that without the backing of the shareholding they were (and I'd include Bennett and Ryan) in an impossible position in both cases and were left with two choices; resign, state the impossibility of the situation and bring the situation into the open or, enter into a years long process of saying one thing in public while trying to get their story out in private.

This has given the strong impression of dishonesty and I think has led to a looser relationship with the truth going forward. Over time, in order to further prevent disclosure of the real position of the club Hood has blatantly misled the fans.

The Harris situation was one they inherited but nevertheless persons (and you know who I mean) have briefed both before and after the capitulation, a version of events for their own ends.

The Orford situation is a case of a BOD not recieving the backing they needed to enforce their own contracts. That they were dealing with sharks is not in doubt. That they were not up to the job of dealing with sharks, nor had any support to do so, is the real story in my view.

FWIW, I think their analysis of the situation they found themselves has some merit. Undoubtedly, they feel they were left holding a rather poorly baby. What they should have done is resign and hand the baby back to its parents. Up until recently, I've had some sympathy for Hood and Co. You can't run any business if the owners are not behind you and clearly they weren't. However, the only thing to do in this situation is resign.

The Coulby story is one of total fiasco in which Hood, Bennett, Duffy, Duckett were significant but by no means the only players.

There's a book in this mess.

Its called the Titanic, simple storyline: unsinkable ship, tip of the iceberg, glug glug glug...

I don't know whether or not the letter is genuine. The only point I would make is that when one party to a dispute chooses to put something in writing, it is entirely natural that they do so in a way that supports their position rather than necessarily giving a balanced picture.

Surely someone can see if this is genuine?

Its in the interests of the current board to confirm its authenticity isnt it?

or in Hood and Bennett's interests to deny its authenticity?

This is further confirmation (if true) that Hood and Bennett were being dishonest during the pledge for survival period. It then casts doubts over their honesty in the last few years.

If this is true, then what we need to do is ensure that we all get behind the current board 100%!

But thats if it is true!

In what way does it? And see Cibaman's comments, with which I fully concur.

Assuming the poster is who I believe him to be, I am working on the assumption that it is indeed genuine. And (as I said earlier), and given it was (presumably) written by an experience lawyer as a fundamental part of a commercial and corporate governance dispute and therefore by definition presents one side and one interpretation of the argument, it held few surprises IMO. The key points where I suspect people may point to "evidence of dishonesty" are actually only suppositions by the writer, as I pointed out, and one at least of those was proved by events to be an incorrect supposition. We none of us know for certain just how close to - or far away from - the statements and suppositions in the letter are to the truth, so (as I said earlier) I really can't see how one can form a cast-iron judgment based on it.

Regardless, though, at present we only have one BoD, and so they are the only game in town right now. I suggest its far too early to decide whether to support them or question them - since we have not yet seen anything from them to either support or question?

Agree with Adey's points above.

With regard to the board, as a supporter of the club I've always supported the 'current' board and will continue to do so, even if part of the support is to ask questions of it from time to time. As is so rightly said above the present 'current' board hasn't done, or said, anything to question as of now. Personally I wish they'd get on with it....