If Casiley could guarentee that he wouldnt put us into administration, would sack Mick Potter and would offload current stars then he would have my support. Until he does that then he's just making a lot of noise.

Coulby sounds like another Caisley mouthpeice IMHO.

What have you got against Potter and the current stars?

Coulby has introduced a third alternative, into the received wisdom-narrative that Caisley either went because he saw what was coming, or he went because he had lost the confidence of the board (for reasons variously speculated upon but never able to be substantiated).

I still say, as I said at the time, that his leaving cannot have come with much pre-warning; and that it cannot have been as a result of a coup by Hood to oust him and secure the job for himself. Regarding the latter, Hood went to such pains at the time to ensure he was titled only "Acting Chairman" and to make it clear he was looking for someone else to step in. He COULD have been being extremely disingenuous there, but I did not think so then and I still can't see it. Although I must admit little now would surprise me.

Coulby SEEMS to be proferring the idea a "third way" to get them through the present crisis - all the bloody major shareholders cut out arguing and save the ship first. And, presumably, hold the trials later. That is precisely what the likes of me have been saying, so you have to take what he is reported as saying seriously, IMO. Whatever his underlying motivation might be. You don't need an EGM for that. You need a table, some chairs, a few cups of tea - and a willingness to listen.

I think its a mobile mistype

No none at all. Having been involved in producing business plans for 20 years these would not get on any Boardroom Agenda. that wasnt my point though was it?

100% correct

Yeah Im sure I corrected it to say wouldnt, on both occasions. Obviously not, but I did mean wouldnt.

I really hope this could happen as it seems a much better way of handling the situation

Corrections aside



Given the trouble we've had on the playing and coaching side in recent years I'd be upset if Potter was shown the door. Its taken an age to get this team looking anything like cohesive and is still work in progress. I'd be upset to see that risked by the unnecessary introduction of another coaching methodology at this stage

Unless its George Galloway and his undeniable influence on our results

The assumption there is that Mick Potter is looking for another deal. He seemed pretty keen on only doing 2 yrs then going back down under. Whilst I'd prefer him to stay on next year if he's determined to go back to OZ then Noble would be a decent replacement. The team Potters built fits pretty well into style of rugby Noble tends to play IMO. Thats assuming we manage to hand onto all the players during the coming months of course.

I came across this www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _comeback/ Has the Editor changed since then?? Appointed chairman in 1989, he presided over the most successful period in the club’s history, winning four Super League titles, two Challenge Cups and being crowned World Club champions three times. But that all came at a cost and the Bulls’ annual losses had become unsustainable by the time his reign came to an end this thread from 2 years ago most posters would see if their views are similar to now viewtopic.php?f=19&t=447425&tsmp=1334923896 Although Caisley's Dad and Diligaff have not been on for a while

I came across this www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _comeback/ Has the Editor changed since then?? Appointed chairman in 1989, he presided over the most successful period in the club’s history, winning four Super League titles, two Challenge Cups and being crowned World Club champions three times. But that all came at a cost and the Bulls’ annual losses had become unsustainable by the time his reign came to an end this thread from 2 years ago most posters would see if their views are similar to now viewtopic.php?f=19&t=447425&tsmp=1334923896 Although Caisley's Dad and Diligaff have not been on for a while

Interesting reading back. I'd not change anything much at all in what I said then.

Im with you on this one...really hope Potter decides stay a couple more years

What ever happened to DILLIGAF?

Does it look like I give a f***

Bulls had to settle after the judge ruled the contract was not a restraint of trade as the Bulls would be liable to some extent surely? Maybe not to the extent they induced him as Leeds said but we were not cash rich to take the risk of a heavier settlement on less favourable terms?

Visiting the toilet a lot and noisily, according to Twitter (if I have my posters correct).

If you mean Gerbelly then you are correct

Yep, that's the one.

Provides an unrivaled live score service, too. Good chap, he is.

There's a whole interview with Caisley on sky sports website. I wonder if hoods seen that yet. I'm not quite happy with the idea of Caisley coming back tbh

Quote ="Elz14_xxx"There's a whole interview with Caisley on sky sports website. I wonder if hoods seen that yet. I'm not quite happy with the idea of Caisley coming back tbh'" Old news, its the only one on there www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/7651072/

Quote ="Elz14_xxx"There's a whole interview with Caisley on sky sports website. I wonder if hoods seen that yet. I'm not quite happy with the idea of Caisley coming back tbh'" Old news, its the only one on there www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/7651072/

Quote ="Blotto"Old news, its the only one on there www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/7651072/'" And in that interview Caisley does his usual trick of making a lot of noise and not actually saying anything, other than that whole "root and branch" nonesense which IMO is him tipping his hand and the whole "review" just being an excuse to justify taking the club into administration.

Quote ="Blotto"Old news, its the only one on there www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/7651072/'" And in that interview Caisley does his usual trick of making a lot of noise and not actually saying anything, other than that whole "root and branch" nonesense which IMO is him tipping his hand and the whole "review" just being an excuse to justify taking the club into administration.

I think there was a comment about it in the last set of accounts the Bulls filed. I had it at the office. I couldn't identify any figures in the accounts though.

Not at all. That was only a preliminary point. One which the Bulls were foolish to take IMO but not one that really affected the Leeds claims of inducment against the Bulls. The settlement came some time after the preliminary issue and the Bulls fought for a while. The case was put on hold whilst the Mainstream case went to the House of Lords and some observers thought that decision strengthened the Bulls position

FWIW, as an interested observer who does some work in this field my view was that Leeds would easily succeed in proving breach of contract by Harris but proving inducment by the Bulls would be a different matter, though I think Leeds would have succeeded.

Even if Leeds did prove breach and inducement IMO damages would have been limited given that when those events occured Leeds surged to the title and posted record crowds. I know there might have bene an argument about lost sponsorship opportunities but then any damages would have been reduced by the wages Leeds hadn't had to pay Harris.

Given the Bulls regime change there appeared little appetite for carrying on the fight. Whether the consequences of losing that fight would have been as disatrous and in the figures reported is debatable but I have doubts they would.