I'd love to know whether this was actually true or not.

Just because you have shares doesn't automatically entiltle you to a dividend. That is declared by the directors based on the results - ie normally if there was a profit.

I think you would need to be a very optimistic person to expect a dividend from a shareholding in a rugby league club.

I have been told it was monies owed for interest on a directors loan that was not paid not a dividend on shares.

Its not.

At least as regarding a dividend, anyway.

You can only threaten winding up if you are owed money by a company. No dividends were declared (or could be, given the financial situation), and a dividend is only a liability once it is declared.

Earlier accounts showed around £85k of interest accrued on loans made by directors and former directors going back ten years or more (the loans themselves were repaid out of the Odsal Settlement 2002/3.). Of this amount, Caisley was shown as being owed nearly £50k. That is the only item shown in recent accounts as being owing to Caisley.

I stand corrected regarding dividends and loans - doesn't alter that he tried to wind us up......

I would just like to confirm I am neither a wife nor girlfriend of any of the players. And neither is my wife.

That's what you think...

I'm not sure we can say this without knowing the full state of the accounts and liabilities going forward. There's a fine line between cute and outright dishonest and we don't know which it is as yet.

Nobody, whether CC or not could promise that the club will not go into administration. If CC's review entailed an audit by respected accountants that revealed a black hole of say £3-4 million then there's no other option. I doubt this is the case but we didn't know we owed the RFL £700k either.

I wasn't saying whether that would be true - just what the effect (IMO) of Bennett's statement is likely to be.

If/when Caisley seizes control, if he WAS to unearth some big black hole left by the previous board, and blamed them - how many people would actually believe him?

Something similar has worked on the masses at Hull by someone I'd trust less than Caisley so it's worth a try

Well, reading that article, it seems that the monies from the pledge have gone, in the main, to pay off HMRC as well as ensuring the players and staff at the club get paid for this month and that the next £500k will be used mainly to continue the club running.

So really, it seems what the club needed was, to put it simply, a wageday advance (as seen on those crappy adverts on the telly in-between ad's for ambulance chasers) due to a sudden, possibly unseen coming, short fall in available money.

So, with HMRC paid off, surely the club is in far, far less of a state to fall now? We've no threat of HMRC demanding a winding up order and the remaining costs for the year being player and staff salaries.

Now, I'm not saying that they should, but surely there's an option there to ask players and staff to defer some of their wages? Just until the club's feet are a little more firmly on the ground?

Personally, the idea of Caisley getting back in charge of the Bulls terrifies me in terms of having the club survive as I have very little confidence in the man. Yes, I know Hood and the others haven't exactly been paragons of virtue in terms of honestly stating how the club is doing, but they have at least done a thankless job in thankless times and managed to turn the club around from losing money hand over fist to (at least until this current crisis surfaced) living within the clubs means.

Best launch an appeal for another £500k then. Adey would do it for less.

I think you are mostly right in the wageday advance analolgy, but I think theres still a bill or two to pay yet, not forgetting that we dont play much at home for a while. But it all depends what sort of a payment schedule the club has managed to agree with Her Majesty.

Has it been confirmed that that all the players have been paid in full and on time? I doubt it.

Has there been any information on the image rights payments that the Bulls have to make over the next 3/4 years.

Weren't KPMG the people who recommended that Crusaders should be awarded a franchise?

yes they have been paid according to statements the club have made. theres mention of other liabilities one of which Ducket has identified as a quarterly VAT payment, and IIRC the image rights bill has been mentioned by someone as another. Bennett clearly says no other long term liabilities which the vat bill is not so presumably neither the image rights bill.

I've had to be audited a number of times by KPMG & PWC. I don't know if they are iffy but you get a couple of frsh faced university graduates who haven't a feckin clue about the process they are auditing.

I bet they had cool hair though.

Err.. yes, they have



I'd therefore suggest you read things thoroughly before commenting on them in future

We may not have too many current debts, but isnt the issue that we've run out of cash and would run up large debts during the rest of the season, if we could obtain credit?

Personally I dont think the club should ask the players to defer wages, unless there's a very real prospect of a cash injection in the very near future. We're not talking about highly paid footballers who could live on their assets for a while. Ethically the club should sell players before asking the squad to defer their wages or take a pay cut.

Ernst Young has an iffy reputation? They're not part of an anti-Hood conspiracy are they? It's many years ago when I had dealings with them but they were very thorough and took no from anyone. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... wer_Elima/ EGM to be held by 23rd May. Bradford Badger rightly points out there are legal responsibilities to be adhered to but 7 weeks from Caisley's statement to the T and A and over two months from the initial statement? Something tells me spiting the great Satan that is Chris Caisley is much more important than getting any resolution to the situation we are in. And as for those saying Caisley would take us into administration, this is as bad if not worse.

Ernst Young has an iffy reputation? They're not part of an anti-Hood conspiracy are they? It's many years ago when I had dealings with them but they were very thorough and took no from anyone. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... wer_Elima/ EGM to be held by 23rd May. Bradford Badger rightly points out there are legal responsibilities to be adhered to but 7 weeks from Caisley's statement to the T and A and over two months from the initial statement? Something tells me spiting the great Satan that is Chris Caisley is much more important than getting any resolution to the situation we are in. And as for those saying Caisley would take us into administration, this is as bad if not worse.

Agar is the kingmaker. His 12% decides which of Hood/Caisley gets to be chairman. If in 2 weeks time (please!) the current board announce they have secured the funds to keep us through to next season and beyond - will Agar stay firmly in CC's camp? I would imagine his phone is permanently ringing with calls from both those men at present.

Reading this www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4466587 I think someones being disengenuous and very econimical with the truth If they also did similar interviews with Jack Bates and Rowland Agar you would find the hymn sheet similar but not the same

Reading this www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4466587 I think someones being disengenuous and very econimical with the truth If they also did similar interviews with Jack Bates and Rowland Agar you would find the hymn sheet similar but not the same