It's essentially a 'paper trail' letter should Hood go ahead and call the administrator. It's purpose is not only to give notice but to show evidence of giving notice in any future litigation. He lays down the substance of conversations which Hood would have to refute in writing within a reasonable time frame (14 days) or they would be accepted as fact by a court at a later date. If Hood doesn't respond, he has accepted CC's version of events and if he does he risks being trapped by any factual inaccuracies.

Wish I'd said that; that's exactly what that letter amounts to. I've written enough like that myself. I wonder if Hood replied, and if so what he said? If he did not reply, and did not refute Caisley's suppositions, he'll likely have weakened his position in the event of subsequent litigation IMO. FA will doubtless advise!

Would love to see the response.

Although I'd love to hear the review is completed, there's no need to sell players, Potter is staying and we're spending the full cap next year a whole lot more!!

I doubt there was a reply, since the nub of the letter is
(a) a demand that they resign (they did); and
(b) a demand they do not put the company in administration (they didn't)

On that basis, I don't readily see what scope there is for any future litigation when any of the matters raised in the letter might be relevant and unless Hood was NOT going to resign or HAD decided to go for admin anyway, I don't see much would have been gained by a reply of any susbtance, from a man who was heading out the exit door.

The fact that they did not resign immediately when demanded - this letter purports both to prove the demand AND provide the reasoning behind it? If so, could Hood be exposed if Caisley can argue that the company's financial position and options worsened as a result? Given of course that by staying on, initially at least, they secured £1/2m of donated cash which clearly saved the business from immediate administration, so Hood would presumably have a strong counter-argument?

Think that point answers itself. Even if we have only had half the truth, it seems clear that if we'd not got the £1/2m in, we'd be in admin now, so the collection of the Pledge has bought everybody breathing space. Including ironically time for CC & Co. to do their meticulous review. The stark choice seems to have been between ringing the pledgors or ringing the administrator.

Not quite sure how getting in a half a million big Brucie bonus in cash could worsen the financial position or narrow options, either!

Exactly.

The only option I can see it narrowed was the new team going for administration because of the new post-pledge moral dimension, and that would not count. And if PH can prove they were in serious discussions with potential sponsors/investors, then he'll have the argument that CC's public (as opposed to private) intervention effectively scuppered the chances, whether it did or not but especially if he has a letter someplace saying the other party/parties had decided not to proceed with the ownership and management issue unresolved?

This letter could easily have been leaked by either side?

It could, and I wouldn't bet much which.

Do you guys charge your clients for the time spent on RAB?

The only things I am waiting to hear on this subject are : we need £xxx to keep out of admin and £xxx to keep our best young bloods - so fans hands in the pockets again

Had they not stepped down and entered administration CC threatens to pursue for losses. Not sure what chance he'd have but it all builds pressure.

I can almost picture Kaiser's hand on Hood's shoulder at the same time. "Now Peter..."

No, the taxpayer. Thanks BTW.

I don't have clients. I work very long - but to an extent flexible - hours. I am sat in front of either this screen or my screen in the office working most of the day and half the night. Time I spend on here is usually to give me short breaks from working. if I spend too long then it just means I have to work even later. That is why I invariably rush my typing and hence the frequent typos.

Come the revolution, comrade...

Typical fekking champagne socialist...

Thats not champers Adey its sparkling Perry!

I prefer a strong pale ale. Can't get my head around champers at all.

Not till now, but that's a great idea, wonder why I never thought of it myself?

I remember when I.P.A and E.I.P.A was the young mans drink then along came Lager!

The company made a profit last year and the "old" board departed with almost £200,000 positve cash in the bank. There was NEVER any intention of going into administration. A "saviour" had contacted the club who was willing to commit £2.5 million. He was interviewed and researched. The "saviour" then turned about to be a fraud falsely representing someone elses identity, who had actuallyy been in prison for similar offences previously.

It still amazes me to see all these posts talking about "investors" or "saviours" - there aren't any - certainly not on the scale people are dreaming about.

As the pledge showed - any solution is going to have to come from the fans on the terraces. Infact if we get any more injuries the next stage of the saga will be "pledge and pull a shirt on"

I totally agree. But the point I was making, rather poorly, was that those who have exited had total belief that this guy would come up with the goods. Demands were made on them to stand down on the basis that the investors CC had in line would only do so if Hood and Bennett stood down, which they have done. The new "old" regime were aiming to put the club to the sword but the finances were not as bad as they had anticipated. Hence the lack of action and current status of limbo at the club

Think that might clarify a bit the background behind the earlier posting, and why you put the letter in the public domain?

When was this "Saviour" unmasked? Was he one of the options that the previous board was pursuing at the time of the pledge? If you are able to say? Might this have been a reason behind PH genuinely believing he DID have investors interested, and therefore for resisting the demand to step down until the truth became clear? Speculating again, of course.

It has been indicated before - maybe by you in another guise? - that the club made a profit last year. I never managed to square that statement at the time with 2011 profit + RFL cash for Odsal - repayment of RFL loan = we still had no cash for when the bank pulled the plug. The nearest I got to it was if the image rights tax and the Harris settlement final installment had all been fully provided for in the accounts up to 31/12/10, and so the company had already taken the profit hit in 2010 and before but the cash hit was in 2011 and 2012 onwards?

It would certainly have been quite a turnround from 2010, although I can speculate on the above and other facets where the cash flows did not mirror the recognition of profit. I really really would love to have someone explain, with the facts and truthfully, why we really ended up with no cash after selling the lease.

I'd expect there to be cash in the bank at the time the old BoD stood down. They resigned on 8 May, and there would need to have been cash in the bank to pay the salaries on 14th and the PAYE etc a few days later.

I am quite sure there was never any intent by the old BoD to put the club into administration. The wording of the letter seemed to me to be an attempt (and understandable, in a bitter business dispute) by the likely victor to ensure history did not record him as the bad guy. That said, given the (to me, still inexplicable) fact that we seemingly had no spare cash even after the lease sale, once the external funding was pulled then administration will have been a certainty I expect had the pledge not succeeded.

My take on it all remains that, for whatever reason, the club was solvent but with no reserves until the bank and RFL funding was pulled (again, for whatever reasons). The pledge was needed to fill that hole and make the club just about solvent again, but the ongoing income was insufficient to cover costs hence the stated need for further funds. In the absence of further funds, in the short term I presume we would have been selling players to sugar-daddied clubs to see us through this year. In the absence of enough new funding or improved income next year, we'd have been cutting the player budget and restoring membership prices, and maybe even then still coming up short.

But I continue to speculate, and really wish (but do not expect) that one day we will find out the facts behind all this.

And the disaster that was last weekend, with the contrived extra fixture quite possibly costing us the play-offs as well as losing five players and a near-fatality, has not helped the new BoD one bit either.

ps. you have answered my question about the "Saviour" while I was typing this.

Which is precisely what I have been arguing and suspecting. Bit hard to go for administration if you are not actually insolvent?

I just wish we had some facts to either prove I read it correctly, or prove I have totally misread it and have been talking bollox through reaching incorrect conclusions based on available evidence.