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...

But I'm missing Salford vs Bradford and no doubt also missing out on our first historic victory at the City Of Salford Stadium.

Firstly well done of the fantastic achievement in raising the £500,000 to stay afloat. But am I missing something? From this it appears that this money means you are out of trouble and debt free?

I understood the figure needed to be in the clear was £1,000,000 and a further £500,000 from investment was still required to cover debts. Has this now changed and this extra money isn't required or is it the fact that with cheap season ticket this amount is require for running costs to see the season out?

I appreciate we'll never know what opportunities have been missed during the saga. I just thought some basic financial information (the size of the debt, how much is cancelled, the pence in the pound paid out to creditors etc) would be made public? Enough information to form an opinion whether Administration was necessary.

At the very least, as a taxpayer, I would feel entitled to know how much HMRC ends up writing off (if we do go into Administration)!

Andy has been worth every penny so far, a great leader but if the cash kept you from going into administration then winners all round.

I hope the times improve for you all now.

I think when we look back with hindsight over the next few months we'll all see that the regime that's just left did nothing for the club.

All they've ever done is talk the club down and our financial woes up, no wonder nobody wanted to invest! And it's a poor form of masses control, similar to our current governments tactics.

We had a dour regime that took us down to their level, this is sport for christs sake not geopolitics.

Let the good times re-commence, and lets start talking our wonderful club up!

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/9696637.First_meeting_of_Bradford_Bulls____new_powerbase/first meeting of new powerbase[/url

The wheel turns. One of the more positive paragraphs from the piece from Potter;

[i"It’s beginning to move forward so I think the wheel is starting to turn again.
“It froze for a month and now we’re beginning to get those cogs working again.
“[uHopefully we can now start to re-sign the players that we want to retain [/uand potentially look in the market as well"[/i

The worry that I have is in the wording of the auditor being present. Are we being lined up for the old change of a government line. Quote "Now we have seen the books, its far worse than we thought" From there on - Administration.

Hope I am not seeing shadows in every corner, but you do worry.

Why does the meeting need to be in Leeds?

I know the answer to that, but I'd much rather they were in Bradford.

All that much will be visibl;e - at least to the creditors who receive the reports from the Administrator.

But its all after the event. For example, there are lots of examples of liabilities that crystalise only on insolvency (just one example - the liability to repay the council up to 2019). And assets get written down to realisable value - usually far less than book value. That means that the financial position you see in the Statement of Affairs is always far worse than it appeared on a going concern basis.

And the uninformed can so often be mislead by the disingenuous, using those numbers, and unwittingly aided by journalists who know little about financials,to believe the financial position was far worse than it really was. Trying to explain the difference between drawing up a set of financials on a "going concern" basis and a "realisation" basis is not that easy, in the face of sensationalist headlines.

My concern - and unfortunately it is also my expectation unless there is genuinely a fair pot of new money out there and/or some of the new grouping have consciences regarding the fans who raised the £1/2m (are you listening, Mr Agar?) - is that we'll see O'Haras or whoever Mr Caisley brings in to "audit" the numbers "concluding" that administration is the only option. And then the Statement of Affairs, prepared on a realisation basis, will of course show significant net liabilities, much higher than the last accounts (which disclosed net assets) mainly because of the different basis of preparation (as is always the case in an insolvency!!!). And then some of the statement of affairs figures will be made public, and used to "prove" what a mess the last board left the comapny in and how they did not level with the fans - when the SoA may well show no such thing! But probably only the accountants, and then probably only those who have experience in insolvency (like me) will realise that.

I really hope I am wrong, and that - maybe since there are other shareholders involved (remember, despite how it might come across Mr Coulby has very few shares now, having sold most of his to Bennett) - they conclude - for whatever reasons - that declaring insolvency and going for administration is not the way forward. The whole reason I backed the pledge, and have been seriously concerned about the return of Mr Caisley, was because of a desperate wish to see administration avoided.

I also would very much love to know, definitively, whether Mr Caisley's intervention on the Thursday before the pledge deadline - coming as it did the day after a sudden major pick-up in pledges the previous day - was a deliberate attempt to derail the pledge, and the fundraising efforts of the previous board (which I believe were real and genuine, although I have no idea how realistic) just a co-incidence of timing. But I suspect only Mr Caisley could answer that.

That is my fear too.

Meeting maybe at Caisley's office? Or that of the "auditor"? And wonder who the "auditor" is? Or are we really talking insolvency practitioner?

I wonder why the meeting isn't taking place at Odsal.

You'd have thought the Coral Stand would be the obvious venue?

I can think of any number of reasons, tbh. I'd guess it was happening at either the offices of whatever insolvency practitioners or accountants are advising Caisley, or maybe at his firm's offices. Or could be at Rot Hall, since the RFL will doubtless play a significant part in what comes next? Holding offsite anyway ensures some degree of confidentiality, for one thing, maybe including the identities of some of the participants? In their situation, I would hold it offsite. But, again, I merely speculate and there could easily be other reasons.

I'd guess the meeting will take place at Walker Morris' capacious(?) premises, which just happen to be in leeds.