Before the remaining Bulls fans all challenge each other to a duel - there is a high probability this "leaked" letter was dropped in the Bulls office by Shiek Assad Ben loadsamoney Mugabeavitch who had just offered PH a £2.5m investment before going round to inspect the new honourable member in Bradford.

Of course the "finances" are bad because the cash expected to come in over the next few months does not cover the amount committed to go out - but they are not as bad as they were before the pledge - which I contributed to unconditionally - and i think the pledge showed if the new BoD were open with us all then they could proably raise the funds needed to see us into the new season at least from the fans. Of course this talk of administration could relate less to the "finances" and more to the tearing up of existing share certificates?

Because there was no point in collecting it in the first place if administration was the only option. The fundraising will have merely delayed the inevitable.

Because it's been taken under false pretences.

If we had been asked to contribute £100 to see another 5 games of rugby before administration, then fine. I would have still be happy to do so. But that's not what we were told is it? We were told that the pledges would not be called in, etc, yada, yada...
So we were lied to.
Oh no, sorry, no we were not lied to ever were we?

I have a sneaky feeling this could be a windup. I guess we'll see tomorrow or Wednesday though.

Gotta love this guy. Another who sees right through the transparent one.

If administrators are appointed, it will be the new BoD not the old.

And, as Northern Relic observes, not necessarily for just financial reasons.

Surely your ire should be directed at the new BoD should that transpire? Since you can have no idea whatsoever whether, left to their own devices, the previous BoD would have appointed or been able to carry on.

wonder what gives you that sneaky feeling? wouldnt be OP's history of starting rumours that turn out to have no substance would it? thomas cook and asotasi to name a couple

And that very over-zealous caveat outlines precisely as to how thoroughly misguided you have been over a period of months as to the current predicament.

As for your attempted pull-up of Maiselbugs' very logical and accurate observations of your fog-ridden deduction and "inside knowledge", what a dire repost and mitigation for your standpoint. The foot stamping "do not say this", "do not do that" is quite spectacular toy throwing. You are the very point of origin for deductions and assumptions. Your irony is quite beautiful.

Your defence of the previous BoD defies belief. Similarly your spurious claim to be self-aware as to your admittance of 'error' is equally fog-ridden. Camp Caisley have made very few public announcements and yet you have utilised your (some may say jaundiced) knowledge of all things legal to smokescreen some of us less learned with what the "actuality" is, when, on the contrary, it most certainly is not. You have concluded and deducted at every point in the last few months. For you to play Speaker of the Commons and Mr Objective when it now suits your narrative, is farcical.

Maiselbugs has simply tied you in knots as to your assumptions and deducations. You have bagged the current review team before you even know the outcome. And done so with high moral ground that would rival Everest. And that, more than anything, is quite ridiculous.

He has done no such thing. And I thought I made it clear that the tone of my response was merely to reflect his own. If my post is "dire", it speaks volumes for the style of he whose approach I merely emulated.

Your own bias has been and continues to be so totally extreme as to grant you no grounds for criticising the standpoint of others.

Whilst the defence is admirable, it is going down faster than the Concordia. The club mouthpiece is looking foolish once more yet just cannot accept it. It seems anyone who takes issue with this clown is "dishonest". Actually, they are just speaking the truth.

=#FF0000BEFORE things degenerate too far on yet another thread please read Bullseyes' opening bit here viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458510. =#FF0000Ta. BP

=#FF0000BEFORE things degenerate too far on yet another thread please read Bullseyes' opening bit here viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458510. =#FF0000Ta. BP

If its true feel very sorry for the fans that put money into the club a few weeks ago to try and save Bradford. This is the reason I wouldn't put any money in when Wakefield were in the same position.

OI YOU

Administrators!? What a load of , the truth is polar opposite - have patience people

Peter Hood said he would only call in the pledge if he was reasonably sure that the extra £500k would be raised. He made that statement knowing that there was a degree of hostility on the part of the major shareholders. He should only have made that statement and called in the pledge if he had good reason to believe that the major shareholders hostility would not be a barrier to new investment.

That was the reason why I pledged and it hasnt happened. It may turn out that he was justified at the time in making that statement and calling in the pledge. But until that becomes clear, my main gripe is with the old Board.

Whilst I don't give a rats ass about more infighting, could a mod please change the title of this thread to something more accurate, including the words rumour or allegedly at least? as its not true yet and just ed me off when I went online as I view this site for any news on this every day.

If its true tomorrow at 10 then fine, change it back no problem, but its going to p!ss me off every time I view the site until we know.

edit,

vexed off...nice, first time I've seen that tool in action on my posts.

Indeed. I notice there is a thread on the Wakey forum stating the 'The Bulls site' is saying that administrators have been appointed.

That's fair enough. Good to see reasoned argument reassert itself.

My view is different in that I was (and remain) desperate to see the club avoid administration. Blind chance kicks in once that happens, and I really could not see how administration would solve anything financially. Still can't. If Caisley DID have investors who would not invest until Hood and Bennett stood down, well the pledge bought time so they could stand down or be removed, and so any such impediment has now gone.

By calling in the pledges, the old board avoided immediate administration. That action bought time for work to be done on a more sustainable financial settlement going forward. Whether it was to be under the auspices of the old board, or a new board, was and remains pretty academic in my book (and still is) provided we stay out of administration.

Should it ever transpire that avoiding administration was only ever a fools' hope, then I will join you in taking issue with the old board. At present, as you know I have an issue with Caisley for making the internal battle public at such a crucial time. It would seem from the letter that Caisley did not believe administration could be avoided under Hood, from my reading of it, but so far we remain in business. And the longer we remain so, the greater the hope must surely be that we will remain so?

Caisley will surely have known that convening an EGM to remove Hood and Bennett could not be done before the likely timing of appointing administrators? If so, and given the seeming intransigence of all parties he must surely have realised that Hood was unlikely to go until forced? And also, if administration was just a week away how did he himself propose to avoid it if Hood had resigned on the spot? There may be answers to these questions, but - like the question you raise - at present we are not party to them. I doubt we will ever be.

In the circumstances, therefore, I would have expected Caisley, minded as he clearly was to have a reckoning, to have said something like:

"OK, you believe you have a better chance than us of keeping the club out of administration; and you have left us sod all time anyway to do anything about it on our own account - we'll deal with that later. Go ahead then and save the club - if you believe you can. And in public, and to these outside investors you claim you have, we will not oppose you. If you fail, we'll string you up and you should expect no less. If despite our expectations to the contrary you should succeed, then once the funding IS in place we will have a day of reckoning about how we got to this situation. And it is extremely likely that you will be removed from office anyway. But at least you will still have your shares, and there will be less reason for us to consider suing you."

Or even something less hostile.

Had he done so, I could have little issue with him. Him and his group owned the majority of the shares, and within reason were entitled to act accordingly - and a situation had been presented to him where he probably had little choice but to take some action.

But its seems it never happened. And until it becomes clear why it did not, and why he chose to go public when he did, my main gripe since the pledge was announced is with Mr Caisley. Before then is a different issue.

Hopefully, until such time as more information becomes available we can continue to agree to differ, and reasonably amicably?

If this is true you can't help but feel that a newco would have been a damn sight better with 500k in the bank to start with. I.e. If things were that bad the administrators should have been called in weeks ago.

Leeking at the previous messages coming from the club it appears they were but the pledge 500k would slow the process down and allow time for investment. I believe the investors will be there but will not want to take on the debt. The losers if this is the case will be those who are owed money and of course those who paid into the pledge (however as it was voluntary and to support the club you love its never a loss)

It was always going to be difficult and hindsight is always superior but perhaps the club should have gone then, that said there is nothing official yet on this just rumours and texts?

Good luck Wakey went through it and whilst our team may not be in top form the club has had a dramatic turnaround and hopefully more good news to come in less than 3 weeks.

No, you specifically referred to the 'new lot' playing to the public gallery.

How do you square stating that the charge was disputed from within the club yet then tell us it wasn't from within the the club, 'From nowhere near the club'. I don't want a PM as I've been consistent in arguing that this type of private briefing to selective posters who'll tow the party line has been damaging and purposely misleading. I've lost count of the number of times you've fell back on the 'someone' has told you in a dark corner when the available evidence hasn't quite fitted together.

No, you haven't been critical of both camps, the Bullbuilder statement withstanding you have gone to extraordinary lengths to present the case for Hood and Co, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Neverthless, every man is allowed to believe what he wants and state it as he wants. What is slightly galling is this utter pretence of evenhandedness, this speed to lecture others on being partisan or biased, these grandfatherly warnings that we are being selectively briefed when you have been at the heart of a message board campaign to present the previous boards argument and by the very volume of your posts, dominate that argument. The charge of dishonesty and disingenuousness is laughable coming from a naked propagandist.

Your claim to change your mind is similarly risible. You have simply shifted your feet as the ground beneath you has fallen away. Ostensibly you are putting the precise same case you've made (in what must be millions of words) three years ago when I and others said the BOD should resign. What you've actually done is develop ever more sophisticated narratives to defend a man you called Duke Peter of Hood the week he gave away the lease on the ground to cover the debts he told you at a fan's forum the club didn't have. If I recall you gave me a good telling off that week as I pointed out just how absurd that story was.

On the leaker, by the time you responded at length yesterday afternoon it was obvious which camp they were in.

That was always my problem with the pledge. If things were as bad as Hood was saying then it seemed better to go into administration and then ask the fans to support newco. The fans could only be asked to pledge once and a pledge that ended up throwing the fans money down the drain would always be the worst possible outcome.

In the end I pledged, albeit very reluctantly, out of a combination of guilt and because I took Hood at his word that the extra £500k would be forthcoming.