The one about thinking "memberships/season tickets" wouldn't incur VAT is a humdinger of an accusation.

Is there any truth in it?

GB has been on the boards for a long time and tbf, has always said it as it is. Some on here do seem very convinced that they know who he is. But then I seem to remember that a lot thought he was Stuart Duffy before...

I prefer the disgruntled ex marketeer rumour. Potentially sacked during the Hood era and now constantly dreaming of the good old days when his good buddy CC was laying the foundations.

Does anyone know who represented Bradford legally during Harrisgate? Someone asked this on the terrace on friday, bet which ever legal genii represented us got paid! Legal fees were a large chunk of that damaging amount that was undoubtebly the start of the rot

Whoever it is has made some very strong comments about possible VAT implications of season tickets / memberships that I don't recall seeing anywhere else ( I could be wrong mind you).

This leads me to suspect that is either totally wrong (and a big accusation to make), or, is someone in the know, more than pretty much every other poster on these boards, which subsequently leads to the suspicion that it is someone connected within the club that has access to certain information that has not been forthcoming........possibly through a request to ask the current board to step aside and show the current financial records????


Regardless, well timed either way......just hours before we call the pledge in......more doubt sewed into peoples minds.

There are some good points in the original post - if there is a VAT issue re memberships, that is a big error by the current board.

It is academic who GB is - and I have been variously assured at times GB is a disgruntled ex marketing person with a massive and extremely unhealthy grudge, a proxy for Caisley or even the man himself. It matters not - the outcome, and the potential beneficiary especially given the timing, is the same. As is the clear fact that what has been posted can only be either libellous or a result of a serious breach of either duty of or undertaking of confidentiality, and so in both cases potentially subject to legal action. What that should tell you about the sort of person GB is, and GB's motives, can only be a matter for individuals to decide.

Can they be libellous if they are true though?

Aye, lad.

Funny old world.

I would be gobsmacked if the directors had not got advice from a VAT expert on such an issue, in which case they surely would be looking at said experts professional indemnity policy. some real pot kettle stuff going on, Caisley a solicitor was responsible for Harrisgate, and should be aware that the only winners in a legal dispute however "good" your case are the solicitors as has been proved, and puts anything Hood has done into the shadows.

and as for Hood etc knowing the bank would be doing a serious review: I had the offer (that took five months to obtain) of a import loan facility based on 40 days repayment, however the bank had actually misinterpreted the period i needed, so I put it back to them that I needed 50 days to cover the import/deliver/invoice time, the invoice being factored (with them) for 85% of its value against cost of the stock at 40% so providing plenty of cover. They reviewed the whole deal and withdrew the offer. If I had known they were going to do that I would have air freighted the stuff in rather than shipped and stuck with the 40 days. One week I had a facility, was discussing the documentation etc needed for each importation, the next week nothing.

So I have great respect for the way Hood has stuck at it in what I know to be the worst financial environment for a long long time with no help from anybody other than the fans (and this last few weeks the players). If he has got us to the point of a new investor in the club then as far as I am concerned the ends justifies the means.

How does that work then?

The OP obviously has an agenda and yes the personal nature of the post could be libellous even if the facts are accurate.

However sometimes the finding out of facts outweigh the agenda/overall message and considering the specific nature of the key points in the OP's post I'm surprised more of you are not concerned with the content rather than the motive.

The complete lack of transparency astounds me considering the board are in the process of handling £500k of your money. If the above is true then it must cast a shadow over the viability of the current administration even with the monies raised already.

A genuine question because I'm curious, has anyone considered that going into administration might just be the best situation for the long term future of the club ? Would the RFL really withdraw the SL license ?

Spot on.

They must be rubbing their hands in glee to be blessed with such a subservient fan-base at a time like this.

I think it's because GB has posted it that some aren't more concerned. He's been on the wind up more often than not and has the knack of rubbing folk up the wrong way.

I've no real idea what's going on behind the scenes, nor am I likely to, I would like to know but I think fans are uncomfortable being used by people with an agenda like the OP.

If it was a post made in good faith I maybe would think differently.

As for being subservient I'm not sure that's what's going on. Most supporters are getting behind the [uclub[/u 100% but still have serious reservations about the Directors.

What he said.

This has got to be the biggest extrapolation of zero evidence I've ever seen. He's said something outrageous and therefore he's someone in the know, wtf? And now, with zero evidence to back anything up, its up to the accused to prove he's wrong. This is brilliant.

Just for the record, I believe Peter Hood is a witch and demand that he comes on here and proves that he isn't. No, no its not for me to prove he is a witch but its vital, in the interests of truth and transparacy, for him to prove that he isn't. And if he has the gall to not come on here and answer this important question, then clearly - he is a witch.

You may think I'm nuts but maybe I know something you don't....

Hear! hear!

And you've established all this without knowing who he is, what duties he held or undertakings he made, where he got the information from, whether there's a word of truth in his claims, or what his motives are other than informing people who are collectively being asked for 500k -£1million?

Good luck in court.

I've argued that the best way of dealing with the awful mess both with the board of directors and shareholding which hates each other is to enter administration. I've stated for years that where we are now is an inevitable consequence of a dysfunctional club and whilst a fearful prospect, the process of adminstration is the only way to scourge the club of the two warring factions, both of whom have put themselves before the club and its fans IMO.

I had thought the same myself.

In fact, I might have a go at my own appeal, on the premise that I'll shed light on things later.

I've seen the latest accounts, but to be honest, you can't draw any conclusions from them as to the specifics of the debt.

Not posted for ages due to too many posters full of dunga. But it's becoming crystal clear that Hood's propaganda machine is in full swing through certain posters who seem to believe everything that he says.

You have. And it would be. Concur on both points.

Where you and I seem to disagree is about the consequences of administration relative to the benefits the scourging would bring. I fear the worst, and also am strongly opposed to businesses going bust, taking the taxpayer and other (often small, local) creditors for a load of money - then rising from the ashes as if everything was right with the world. Its not IMO - its morally wrong and tantamount to theft. I accept though not that many share that second POV, but I feel strongly about it and, being a stubborn sod, I remain unmoved about trying to avoid administration if at all possible.

Just a bit surprised why you came out in support of Caisley ahead of administration the other day? Unless you share my view that Caisley would probably put it into administration anyway?

Exactly

(FAO: M@islebugs) ....and yet you give the [iimpression[/i that you believe him......



as it neatly fits your perceptions (rightly or wrongly) of the current BoD.

Why would anyone take the time and trouble to reply to the unsubstantiated writings of an internet keyboard warrior who has provided no shred of evidence whatsoever. I know I wouldn't and so do not expect Hood to do so. One assumes that this accusation coming out after the Bulls ask supporters to pay up following the pledge is a pure coincidence and that the accusations couldn't have been mentioned earlier? It is the timing of these "revelations" that I do not trust - not necessarily the message.

i.e. You don't know. That must rankle.

The problem is that even though we've given them £500k we've got very little to show in terms of leverage. I'm sure there are plenty who believe we have the moral right to have some say, but I'm afraid that might not count for much. Similarly we have been assured by a number of people that the Board wouldn't call on the pledges unless they were 100% certain they could find the remaining £500k, however the Board had already assured us we were financially secure post the sale of the lease to the RFL.

I am a bit amazed how passively accepting of the situation most people have been and can only put that down to the great passion for the club that we all hold and the fear that it might disappear. But I still think the idea that we can fix the ownership structure after we've saved the club is just wishful thinking rather than being based upon any practical idea of how that can be achieved. Personally I don't want either Peter Hood or Chris Caisley in control and believe we've shown it could be democratised given the willingness of fans to put their own money in, so I'm not sure why we have to believe our choices always come down to picking between two men, both of whom appear to me to be incompetent.

The point is that GB is usually completely spot on in anything he says and he is usually proven right. Result? He gets slated by some who just cannot accept that they are not as clued up as they they think they are.

The same could be said for others like myself, B4C and Redeverready for our "misdemeanors" in the past.

Curious......