Here's a suggestion - don't know if it is feasible or not.

Board issue more shares and offer them to new investors - this will get much need cash into the club, reduce existing shareholders percentage (less power) and have the option to give Bullbuilder an amount of shares.

Just a thought. . . .

Non-starter, unfortunately.

The Articles of Association (constitution/rules) empower the directors to issue new shares, and there seem to be no pre-emption rights in favour of existing shareholders (which is perhaps unusual).

BUT there are virtually no shares left to be issued within the £200,000 Authorised Share Capital.

And yes, the Companies Act 2006 eliminated the requirement for a company to have an Authorised Share Capital, but where a company already HAD one then that provision becomes part of the Articles of Association.

For the directors to issue new shares, they would first have to have that provision in the Articles of Association deleted or amended.

And THAT requires a Special Resolution (75% majority) passed by the shareholders.

Now can anybody start to see why we'd never get past that stage...?

and to summarise Aidy's post = its not possible

Was Caisley ousted in a boardroom coup?

The reason I ask is that I keep reading lots of references to him bailing out and leaving the club up a creek without a paddle etc but is this what actually happened?

A certain person very close to the club has told everyone in the Bradford region that CC has been waiting until the club went belly up to regain control which only adds up if he was forced out in the first place. Otherwise he'd have stayed I guess.

Don't recall him being "ousted". From memory he stood down after the end of the 2005 season, with a few parting shots at the fans with their lack of support in numbers for the club. He said as much in one of the final accounts he was responsible for signing off as chairman.

Peter Hood took "temporary" charge stating he would look for outside investment and step aside once that arrived.

Hood then took charge officially and the rest as they say is history.

The rumour you state is a well heard one around these parts isn't it. How much truth there is in it remains to be seen....

A bit of Caisleyology from the archives: Oct 2011: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... t/?ref=rss www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y/?ref=rss March 2010: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss T&A archives only go back to 2009. I have an old database from when the RLFANS news aggegator was still running kicking around somewhere, I'm sure I still had it going in 2006. I'll see what else I can dig out.

A bit of Caisleyology from the archives: Oct 2011: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... t/?ref=rss www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y/?ref=rss March 2010: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss T&A archives only go back to 2009. I have an old database from when the RLFANS news aggegator was still running kicking around somewhere, I'm sure I still had it going in 2006. I'll see what else I can dig out.

That is pretty much as I remember it. It was at the same time as the club was cutting the high earners from the wage bill and and selling who and what they could. Nobby left for Wigan closely followed by Stu Fielden and many others. The impression, and indeed statements from the club seemed to confirm, that the club had been run into the ground and was in imminent danger of going bust. I don't think there was any boardroom uprising to claim what was clearly a poisoned chalice.

OK, he leaves of his own accord with the club in imminent financial trouble. How does the 'vendetta' story hold water then? I'm not asking you specifically, just trying to work out the narratives that are constantly being spun here.

I'm with MB here in that I'm confused by some of the opinions of Caisley being expressed on here. I have absolutely no idea of what went on behind the scenes when he left the club (and , I guess, neither have most people). However, some insist that he is responsible for the club's plight because we "lost" the Harris court battle, even though in fact the case was never heard. We ended up paying Leeds the compo because we folded, no doubt for reasons of prudence, but we folded nevertheless. Caisley did not sell the Burgess brothers to Souths, the current BOD did, no doubt for a significant wad of cash.

I've never met Caisley, or any of the directors, and so have no axe to grind about any of them. But to paint Caisley as the devil in all this seems to me to be just plain silly.

You seem to be incorrectly informed the case was taken to court but the amount was not made public. See the verdict here [urlhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.html[/url as it was ruled not a restraint of trade we had no choice but to negotiate.

That was the very first hearing. There was never no hearing concerning the £3.2m Leeds were seeking in compensation that was settled out of court.

That was a hearing to decide a preliminary issue. That was brought about by the Bulls alleging the Harris/Leeds contract was a restraint of trade. The Bulls lost that issue and the claim continued. The Bulls were disputing they had induced Harris to breach his contract which was the real substance of the case.

It stagnated for a while whilst another case on Inducement to Breach was determined by the House of Lords. When that case was determined Ferocious Aardvark and I disagreed about what the outcome of that case meant for the Leeds Bulls case* which remained stagnant for some time after that.

Eventually there was a settlement. The terms of that settlement were confidential but we know the Bulls made payment to Leeds by three instalments over three years as it's recorded in both companies set of accounts. Therefore, Glory Hunter is correct that the Bulls never lost the case because the case wasn't determined.

*I don't wish to imply that the representatives for Leeds, Bradford and Harris awaited the outcome of the discussions between FA and I on here before moving on with the case, but maybe they should've.

Is it??? The only thing I can remember seeing in either company is only tangential, which was Leeds having a curious trade debtor of £350k due for receipt after more than one year in the 2008 accounts; but there is no evidence that relates to the matter at hand, not least as it doesn't agree to anything showing, in reverse, in the Bulls' accounts.

The Bulls, in fact, never disclosed anything of any use as far as I could see although reference was made to the existence and, later, the settlement of the case. One could and did wonder whether it should have been better disclosed as an exceptional item (Companies Act should trump confidentiality clauses when it comes to accounting disclosures) but presumably it was somehow agreed the figure was not material.

Why is a secret?

And - any of the lawyers on here, could the Bulls have actually won the case, had they not caved in?

They had to fold. The consequences of losing would be administration (oh the irony). With hindsight - going bust then may have been the better option.... (discuss?)

If Leeds lost it would just have cost Caddick part of his annual income. They could afford to lose (although the longer things went on the more confident they seemed to get) - was that confidence in their case or confidence they could just financially outlast the Bulls? or a combination of both?

Stephen Coulby at the bottom of this article:

"I also know the figures for that Harris-Leeds deal and it is not the reason the club’s in this state. We would have done things differently (re Harris) in hindsight but we could cover it due to the increase in TV money"

[urlhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/bradford-bulls/coulby-calls-for-clarity-as-bulls-continue-their-fight-1-4466587[/url

I've wondered this for a long time. Could it be that We might have won the case against Leeds and in fact Caisley was proven right? Did Hood et al force Caisley out when in fact under his stewardship we could have gotten through it! Administration then versus administration now being the worse case scenario that could have happened.

Perhaps Caisley wanted to take it to a conclusion but wanted the support of shareholders and they bottled it. Sadly, we will never know!

Both sides have utter contempt for each other and because Hood has had almost free reign to blacken Caisley's name since he took over, directly and indirectly, we believe him. should we?

There has been too much CC baiting in my view. Half truths have been potrayed as facts and then expanded to fit a conspiracy theory. Perhaps we should judge when we have seen their plan? Just one other point was Peter Hood on the board when we signed Harris? If so he is just as much responsible as any other member of the Board.

The direct financial consequences caused us a problem - but not fatal. The indirect consequences - JP leaving, the ruling that Harris' (3rd party) wage actually counted on the salary cap - causing the squad to suddenly need to shed player contracts to get under the cap again, having to replace with cheaper deals, less quality on the pitch, lower standard of fare, etc etc started the decline.

The Harris deal - short term benefits but direct & indirect consequences which outweighed the benefits (with hindsight)

The current plan which has been released so far from the CC consortium is:

Tasker (admin/back room), Noble (playing side) and Preston(an actor) will conduct a review and then we will come up with a plan.

Is that a good plan?

Of course the Hood option is : We have a good medium/long term business plan which will see us in good stead once we have overcome the short term issues.

These are our current options.

See any you like?

The question whether the Bulls could have won the Leeds case is sterile and stale. We will never know what advice they were given when they decided to fold, it was a big surprise to me (especially how bullish (sorry!) Caisley and others had been throughout) but given the sums involved all you can presume is that a very learned friend had advised at no doubt great cost that the game was not worth the candle.



I always thought that claim was the biggest load of hokum ever. "We could cover it"?? Well, yes, but hardly a relevant point, if what you want to know is the effect on the club's finances!!

Hypothetical Illustration:
Club X receives £1m Sky money. This is due to go up to £1.5m
Result, Club X has £1.5m to spend.

But then Club X has to pay £1m in compensation and legal costs.
Result, Club X has ONE MILLION POUNDS LESS to spend.

"But don't worry, we can pay it, cos the Sky money's gone up" is to me the most pointless, irrelevant and irritating slant on that situation. What he was really saying was "It's OK, as we can blow a large slice of what would be our Sky income, that we would have been able to use for the benefit of OUR club, on paying off Leeds and lawyers".

And anyway, we now know that, ATEOTD, we could NOT afford to pay it, as if that money was still in our coffers, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Who would the et al have been? At the time, Hood had around 7% of the shareholding and Bennett was not then significantly in the mix. Caisley has, I believe maintained around 25% throughout, so I struggle to understand where the 'Hood et al' bloc comes from to force Caisley out.

Yes, Coulby also states Caisley wanted to step down in 2004 and was persuaded to stay on. This undermines the theory that Hood forced him out or that having been forced out he has conducted a vendetta because of it.

Indeed. Having now read the Coulby article, it's clear that the current directors were in a position to control the board by 2010 (having by then acquired 25% of the shares between them), but this was not the case in 2006. Either Caisley did step down / jump ship (am I right in remembering some parting shot from Caisley about how the reasons why he was leaving would "soon become apparent"?), or he must have been pushed by some of those now apparently supporting him.