The other financial benefit of admin from new boards point of view is it removes need to honour things like five yr season tickets and remaining yrs of the contracts of certain players deemed surplus to requirements. Can't see fans or rfl respectively being too pleased if they use admin as a way to avoid these commitments though.

From the tone and content of today's T and A article and the interview with Coulby last week the suggestion is there's a significant possibility of other liabilities which have not been previously revealed by Messrs Hood and Bennett. Bennett himself raised the spectre of admin if 'Caisley and his cohorts' took over. If there's no other liabilities apart from the ones that have now been met how is this a possibility?

Maybe I'm expecting the worst and then interpreting the articles in the same manner.

Anybody catch Ryan Duckett on Radio Leeds just then? I just missed it.

Steve McGowan could be the cleaner.

As I keep observing, administration would be a means for CC to gain total control.

If, as we have been assured, all the non-day to day liabilities have been settled, then if there is a day to day cash shortfall that could doubtless be plugged by Moran and transfer fees, and least in the short term. So will be interesting to see what the justification for administration might be.

I don't think anyone believes the assurances Adey. If half of what Coulby said is true then God knows what they're going to find.

Is that right? I dont have any experience of Administration but was under the impression that it was a fairly transparent process? If, as FA says and I have before, we've paid off the major debts, wouldn't that become known during an Administration?

would rather see his brother Shane.did a great job with his teeth.

Although technically he has majority control at the moment. Which might be a less risky option - once he has weighed all the variables.

This review process. If we accept that Duckett & Potter are good at their jobs - then the review process doesn't have to be a significant amount of time. It might actually be separate 1hr presentations with a q&a session afterwards over a cup of tea.

Duckett will know the financial skeletons (or lack thereof) and just needs to bring Tasker up to speed.

Potter will know the strengths & weaknesses of his squad and who he wants to let go/keep and who to get in.

Coulby & Caisley & Agar would bring it all together.

That meeting with Nobby would be interesting. I would love to be a fly on the wall for that one.

Anyone still confident we'll avoid Administration after listening to Duckett on boots n all?. He usually comes across pretty well but seemed to not have a clue whats going on. Cullen and O'Connor putting boot in will hardly help attract investors either.Pretty certain our average attendance is well north of 8k too which one of them stated as current figure.

Its certainly not a transparent process at all - far from it. Especially with prepacks. An administrator will always be able to justify his actions in some way. But that wasn't my point. What I was getting at is that once a business is in administration, there is virtually no way for Joe Public to get to know whether if COULD have been saved without resorting to administration. All we'd have is one camp assuring us that administration was the only option, and the other likely saying the opposite - and adding that it was the first party's intervention that prevented the second party from securing the investment it was pursuing.

And we'll never know the truth of it. But, unto the victor the spoils, and history is usually written by the victors?

The presentation was embarrassing.

Don't these presenters know that meticulous preparation is essential to at least come across as legitimate and knowledgeable.

The above isn't in no way shape or form aimed at Ryan Duckett, but those two clowns.

Sky's Rugby League coverage needs an urgent revamp IMO.

Maybe a week on Friday a new era could start?

I'm of the opinion that Chris Caisley's mind is already made re: the future of the club.

He's already seen the clubs books.

I won't lie in that the current situation looks bleak to me though as my Grandfather and Father did in the years gone by, I will support whatever outcome if professional Rugby League can be maintained in Bradford.

That includes Chris Caisley's strategic review.

Surely PH wouldn't have taken the pledge money if he didn't think we could avoid admin.

If what Coulby said was true, and the WHOLE truth and not just selective extracts of the truth, then - as well as being quite extraordinary, it goes some way to explaining why the black hole had to be significantly larger than we were told. It HAD to be, because when you do the maths (as I did) we should have been left with ample from the sale of the lease to clear down any non-day to day liabilities. The fact that we clearly were NOT HAS to mean there were more historic liabilities than we had been told about, IMO. I've said that in private almost from the start, as others will attest.

And I have seen references to a couple of clear candidates in previous posts on this forum.

BUT, all that said, to me everything - including specific responses from the BoD - pointed towards the pledge £1/2m being enough to clear down those liabilities, which was the previous BoD's line and which was why I supported the pledge as being the only game in town. And, for me most importantly of all, in discussions I raised the matter of trading whilst insolvent, and I felt it was clear Hood was fully aware of the consequences of that, and had been advised accordingly.

IF they called in the pledges recklessly, without reasonable expectation that by doing so then insolvency should be avoided, then I believe the BoD Could be personally liable for losses people incurred as a result. Which is why I suspect that, on balance of probabilities, there are no big crystalised liabilities still waiting to be discovered. But I can only form a view based on information and explanations made available, and on the assumption that the BoD was at least moderately competent.

I don't think I'm betraying any great secrets by saying that I was told, by highest-placed sources on more than one occasion, that CC's intervention - together with those of Sutcliffe and Preston and some other public statements - made things very much more difficult for the BoD in trying to raise funds. Indeed, Hood as good as said that in public by confirming that new investors were unlikely to want to complete deals with guys whom the owners of the business were in the course of seeking to remove.

My own opinion, FWIW, was and remains that that could have been the intent, and it is also my opinion that the intervention probably contributed to the delay in confirming that the pledge would be called in. But we'll likely never know for sure one way or the other, and I stress I do and can only speculate. I hope that, on the former at least, I am wrong. And we'll almost certainly never know now whether, left to their own devices, the BoD would have pulled it off, so the whole issue has now become hypothetical anyway.

But if Hood & Co were to have called the pledges in if there were still substantial financial skeletons in the closet that called into question the survival of the company, then IMO they would have been reckless crazy fools. And, whatever folk may think of Hood, I really can't see Ryan being party to anything like that, risking major personal liability?

For those reasons, whilst I am quite sure we were never told the whole truth, equally I find it very hard to believe we were told a pack of lies.

But I've got to the stage that little in this whole sad, sorry saga would surprise me any more.

I think I know what you are referring to Mick, but do they?

I want it all to be a pleasant surprise.

What's happening a week on Fri?

We're playing Salford and...


[spoiler alert - look away now if you don't want to know



We are actually going to beat them for once!

I still don't think that cerise feather boa and shocking pink tutu was the best choice of attire, mind...

Well, if it turns out that we have a shedload of debt the existence of which was effectively denied then I would think that there would be every chance of a large group of disgruntled contributors consulting with lawyers and seeking their money back.

I can't think that we could possibly have been deliberately misled to THAT sort of extent (Adey has also already mentioned the "trading whilst insolvent" issue and possible ramifications) so I am sort of excluding this. But yes, it is a case where literally nothing would surprise you any more.

I think that's a chip over the top. Maybe I should just go for the One?

The all in one suit

Rugby League is happening.

And steps up to a whole new level...