Quote ="Blotto"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'" Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

Quote ="Blotto"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'" Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

Just in the interest of balance!:

We didnt lose the Harris case, we settled out of court. After Caisley had ceased to be an active board member IIRC.

Built a complex to attract corporate guests and have year round use of the stadium. Should he have predicted the recession and a downturn in income from this?

The club sold the Burgesses and made a pretty hefty sum. Had the agent not greased the wheels,then we wouldnt have sold them and we would have been in this situation sooner.

Still awaiting the outcome of his attack on hood. will hold off judgemnet until we see how things pan out. didnt derail the pledge like some people thought it would though!

appointed Peter Fox

Bought and sold Paul Newlove making a massive sum.

employed Brian Smith, and Peter deakin - Defined Superleague when most folks said it was a non starter.

employed Brian Noble - the most successful coach this club has ever had.

under his leadership won 4 SL titles, 2 CC, and 3 WCC's

23rd May. The twenty-third of May.

It's not necessary to comment on the date. It jumps off the page and does a look-how-far-I-am-from-other-dates dance.

[i"All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us"[/i?



substitute your own acheivements and names accordingly depending on if you think the romans/caisley are the good guys or the bad guys...

These allegations are the first insight I've seen on how things were working (or not) on the ground, involving the major players, shareholders etc. 20 consecutive cancelled monthly meetings? You wouldn't be happy.

I'd urge everyone to read the article in todays Yorkshire Post, it is extremely interesting www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4466587 Assuming that Coulby isn't just spinning, it seems to indicate that there have been considerable conflicts at board level for years, culminating in the scenario where Hood and Bennett effectively forced out the others. That there hasn't been a single meeting of the Shareholders / Associate Directors in almost 2 years indicates the contempt in which they are held by Hood and Bennett. This 'us and them' situation is obviously hurting us at the present time, and somehow needs to be resolved. The current shareholding situation is entirely untenable in the longer term, yet it is effectively paralysing any attempt for the club to move forward.

I'd urge everyone to read the article in todays Yorkshire Post, it is extremely interesting www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4466587 Assuming that Coulby isn't just spinning, it seems to indicate that there have been considerable conflicts at board level for years, culminating in the scenario where Hood and Bennett effectively forced out the others. That there hasn't been a single meeting of the Shareholders / Associate Directors in almost 2 years indicates the contempt in which they are held by Hood and Bennett. This 'us and them' situation is obviously hurting us at the present time, and somehow needs to be resolved. The current shareholding situation is entirely untenable in the longer term, yet it is effectively paralysing any attempt for the club to move forward.

The EGM needs to be called ASAP if the Directors/major shareholders cannot resolve as Adey suggests (on another thread) by sitting round a not very big table and talking. Whilst the article sheads some light on this terrible situation we need the club to come first.

Quote ="paulwalker71"I'd urge everyone to read the article in todays Yorkshire Post, it is extremely interesting www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4466587 Assuming that Coulby isn't just spinning, it seems to indicate that there have been considerable conflicts at board level for years, culminating in the scenario where Hood and Bennett effectively forced out the others. T[ihat there hasn't been a single meeting of the Shareholders / Associate Directors in almost 2 years indicates the contempt in which they are held by Hood and Bennett. [/i This 'us and them' situation is obviously hurting us at the present time, and somehow needs to be resolved. The current shareholding situation is entirely untenable in the longer term, yet it is effectively paralysing any attempt for the club to move forward.'" Highlighted bit - I do not think you can necessarily draw that conclusion based on just his comments. You need the other side of the argument too, before being able to form a more objective view. There may be more too it than that, and given that the combined holdings of Coulby, Agar and Bates alone were several times those of Hood at the time, there must have been I suspect since Hood could not have forced anyone out through weight of shareholding alone. Your last point is right, and is exactly the point Maislebugs has been making for ages, certainly stronger than I have. And he went further than you, in that he has been pointing out that in his view it has been hurting us and effectively causing paralysis for years. Which of course, and as becomes increasingly clear, it has been.

Quote ="paulwalker71"I'd urge everyone to read the article in todays Yorkshire Post, it is extremely interesting www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-4466587 Assuming that Coulby isn't just spinning, it seems to indicate that there have been considerable conflicts at board level for years, culminating in the scenario where Hood and Bennett effectively forced out the others. T[ihat there hasn't been a single meeting of the Shareholders / Associate Directors in almost 2 years indicates the contempt in which they are held by Hood and Bennett. [/i This 'us and them' situation is obviously hurting us at the present time, and somehow needs to be resolved. The current shareholding situation is entirely untenable in the longer term, yet it is effectively paralysing any attempt for the club to move forward.'" Highlighted bit - I do not think you can necessarily draw that conclusion based on just his comments. You need the other side of the argument too, before being able to form a more objective view. There may be more too it than that, and given that the combined holdings of Coulby, Agar and Bates alone were several times those of Hood at the time, there must have been I suspect since Hood could not have forced anyone out through weight of shareholding alone. Your last point is right, and is exactly the point Maislebugs has been making for ages, certainly stronger than I have. And he went further than you, in that he has been pointing out that in his view it has been hurting us and effectively causing paralysis for years. Which of course, and as becomes increasingly clear, it has been.

Quote ="M@islebugs"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 poop 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?[size=150 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.[/size And as for those saying Caisley would take us into administration, this is as bad if not worse.'" Pot? Kettle? Black anyone? Coming from someone whose main aim seems to have been getting rid of the current chairman and not what's best for the club, I find that a bit rich.

Quote ="M@islebugs"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 poop 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?[size=150 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.[/size And as for those saying Caisley would take us into administration, this is as bad if not worse.'" Pot? Kettle? Black anyone? Coming from someone whose main aim seems to have been getting rid of the current chairman and not what's best for the club, I find that a bit rich.

Not sure that can be right. If, as appears, Caisley has the backing of other shareholders such that he with them can call meetings and get through anything they want, it follows that he could (with their backing) have "got rid" of Hood long before now if that had been his aim?

What is now best for the club? I'll be perfectly honest and with a heavy heart and a sense of doom, say I'm fscked if I know

If Caisley's plan is to place the club into administration, would we not see all 'Other' shareholders rejecting his appointment, as they would be signing away their interest in the Bulls? (business politics are not my strong point).

The article in the YP is quite worrying really. Even the shareholders want to get involved and help out, but the impression they are giving, is that they are being pushed away.

I'm starting to take the view that, I don't care who is the Chairman, as long as we have a Club, in Superleague, keeping our young 'home grown' players.

Whether other shareholders support him I suspect is dependent on deals being done in private. I can't see caisley having financial clout to be able to buy the club outright from administrators. I'd imagine if any of other bigger shareholders are backing him it's because their part of his consortium to buy club out of admin and they would end up with a similar % shareholding to what they have now with caisley ending up with 51%+. suspect the reason ffor delay in EGM is that one or two of bigger shareholders are sitting on the fence. They'll back hood if he can get investment as that means they avoid having to put money in themselves. If no investment then they back caisley but have to put money in to retain their shareholding.

Has anyone any evidence to support the view that Caisley would put the club into administration?

Sorry guys, but the trouble with these kind of threads is that it's all what if, what if, what if.
I for one am getting fed up that the club seems to be still doing things a bit cloak and dagger, and we as paying supporters of the club shold have a right to know what is going on and if we are still going to have a club to support.

What if . . . they don't know?

I'm starting to believe they don't know whats going on!!!

Its the lack of any evidence that he has any other plan, combined with him trying to do exactly that last year, thats the worrying bit. If Caisley came out and outline what his actual plans are then he might get a more sympathetic hearing.As it is he's sat on the sidelines calling for board to resign and through various stooges demanding to know what plans the current board has to address the situation. yet he won't put forward any other options other than a mention of a review of clubs structure. No mention of any potential investment.

IF he does have investment lined up and its conditional on him returning as chairman then effectively he's putting his own interests ahead of the clubs. Get the investment into the club and stabilise it and then surely he'd get the backing of majority of shareholders at an EGM to become the chairman. Its the fact he isn't doing it that way thats making it look likely that he views administration as best alternative combined with his lack of comment on the possibility.

Then, having said they wouldn't take our money unless they did know, they have cemented their already considerable reputation as lying liars who lie.

I read it. Unlike some mugs I do not believe everything that is said / reported. You believe it if you need to.

That could be the case. Pure speculation but well possible - maybe there was a possibility of a deal with someone, who will no longer play as the board he is dealing with are likely to be removed at an EGM in a month? I'd guess that trying to persuade people to invest sizeable money when you're on borrowed time yourself may be less than easy.

Certainly though the intervention by Caisley, and the EGM elephant in the room, did arise [ibefore[/i they took our money. I can't find the original statement. The only one I can find is the FAQ on the Bulls site which states:
"=#FF0000Do not send us any money at this stage. When we make the £500 000 target you will be required to make payment immediately. You will be able to make your payment via the phone, online, at the ticket office or by cheque.

What if we don't reach our target of £500,000?

We will not ask you for any money. "

There is a quote on one of these threads (not sure where, I've read so many) that it would be good to see Hood & Caisley work together for the sake of the club, but it's highly unlikely, if not impossible.

I think the whole board of directors need to have a good long hard look at what the supporters of this great club have done, and take their lead from them. 500k in 10 days from people from a city that isn't on the up, and the wider RL community, working together. Ordinary people giving what they can, even when they can't afford it, because they love this club.

And there's a lad who is going to walk from Whitley Bay to Bradford to save his favourite club - that's dedication. It's a shame that the board can't show this too by coming together to sort this mess out, regardless of who's fault it is, and then have their power struggles afterwards.

I've had enough of this. I want to go back to moaning about what's happening on the field instead of off of it. Rant over.

Completely summed up what i have been thinking. The BOD's and shareholders really need to come together for the good of the club. Pride is not always a good thing!