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......

Because we were assured that administration meant the loss of the clubs players as no other option had presented itself. In light of this I'd prefer Caisley to the present board and have pledged out of emotion rather than reason.

This is the major problem I have. I have paid my money to save the club, not the Board and certainly am less than enthusiastic about Caisley coming back as I still believe that it was his pi$$ing contest with Hetherington that led to where we are now. However, unless one or the other or both are prepared to give up/sell thyeir shareholding in the Club I cannot see how we can move forward!

But you've been arguing for administration for years, as you said? Before anyone assured anyone about losing key players? But anyway, at present we are where we are.

One question that I do not think has ever been asked yet (apologies if I am wrong) - would the shareholders collectively be prepared to sell their shares, preferably for their nominal value since they cannot be worth a cent in an insolvency, to e.g. a supporters' trust or other entity that would be owned by the supporters?

I wonder if anyone has ever asked them?

Since THAT would resolve this sodding shareholdings abortion once and for all!

And, if they all did indeed have the best interests of the club at heart, surely they would welcome this solution to the otherwise intractable problem?

We've seen the fans raise getting on for £1/2m at short order. I suspect we'd do it again, more or less, if it solved the problem once and for all?

Now, we're thinking alike

Most of us never differed that much (apart from the odd vulture) - its just that arguing for one particular course of action over another - or seeking to explain why we are stuck with a particular course of action - invariably leads those who do not agree to immediately associate you with who they see as the bad guys.

And, sadly, too many folk use that as a means of trying to undermine the argument.

I completely agree with that sentiment and it always is the small local businesses that get shafted as they have little say as to the acceptance of any CVA. It is [isometimes[/i a necessary evil though.

[iIf[/i the financial situation is as bad as painted then administration could be inevitable at some stage regardless of the pledge.

This is why I'm particularly astounded about the complete secrecy around the financial truth while asking for a bail out. Btw I do understand the sentiment but that would only go so far with me when it comes to my money benefiting someone I don't trust.

I haven't seen too many bad guys (or girls!) on here, mostly concerned folk who care passionately about the club.

However I would be really interested if Bullbuilder - the only obvious and viable vehicle for this sort of move did raise such a question though. I'm also fairly sure that the fan base would respond positively to such a move if it were to happen, and I appreciate why such a move would have been difficult over the last couple of weeks given the desire to be all pulling in the same direction, but surely now is the time to start raising this possibility if we're serious about changing the ownership structure and preventing a takeover by another oligarchy with little interest in the supporters?

I'll post the link again, as in the absence of said sugar daddy its the only way - Community Shares!

[urlhttp://www.fc-utd.co.uk/story.php?story_id=4106[/url

Adey, could you ask the question if the shareholders would be willing to 'sell' to the fans?