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.

Some fair points in there, and it's rare for me to type as such.

A key factor for any potential investor is quite simply that the injection of funds (and alignment) is both viable and will provide some kind of ROI. Similarly, if the potential investors have a view that an existing administration has been both dysfunctional and negligent then it would be only the brave and narcissistic who would progress. Given that more than explicable scenario awaiting the removal of key members of a misfiring management seems perfect common sense.

I do think Ryan Duckett needs to be given elements of credit for the way he has conducted himself in the media, under quite a bright spotlight. Remaining positive is critical in all elements of successful business and this he has done publically. My concern, rightly or wrongly, is that a CEO is a core part of any financial guidance, structuring (alongside player recruitment) and given the evident parlous situation, which I'm sure may prove to be even more perilous than is currently publically evident, him remaining as CEO may be actually, untenable. Notwithstanding the financial elements, our player recruitment has been abominable over recent years given our relative salary cap spend and that in itself to most fans who care primarily for the on-field production and cast members, is a core facet to be analysed.

Credit must go to Hood for stepping down, and yes as a highly vitriolic critic of his on frequent basis that doesn't come easily, I simply hope he hasnt misled the fans as I may suspect regarding any further chasm and financial black hole. It is also clear that the "review" by CC, SC et al is simply that prior to determining the exact course of action needed. For us to guess what any "intention" may be is futile given that they are not yet in a position to have fully assessed where we are as a club. Sweeping the office of dust won't get rid of the rotten timber.

I rather suspect that the key decisions that have most bearing on the current mess, including signings and overall financial control, were handled by Hood.

In my opinion, Ryan has done a superb public job this last few weeks, in pretty dire circumstances and with sod all support from his Chairman.

In fact, I believe Ryan does a pretty outstanding job generally, especially given the serious lack of resources at his disposal. He is also, in my opinion, one of the most genuine and decent blokes you could hope to meet. I very very much hope that he is retained at a senior level in the new structure, and that his role is not handed to Tasker unless it is clear to all parties that that would be a significant improvement.

I get the feeling that the "Cohorts" are struggling for or maybe not even bothering with getting new investment, administration became more a probability than possibility as soon as Peter Hood stepped down.

Elements I'd concur with there but I'd prefer a CEO at a sports club who had more strength to personally handle key elements including the playing roster and critically, strategic brand guidance. If that's not the case, then he is simply a CEO by proxy, solely dealing with the bits Hood didn't like, PR for one.

My additional concern is the wind blowing. Loyalty is one thing, flaky wind blowing is another (which people may view it as) to switch from Camp Hood to Team Caisley and accompanying flag waving to mitigate ones position. Ryan is seemingly a very pleasant guy. But being merely a nice guy and a hand shaker doesn't make anybody Donald Trump. It's all about the bottom line.

absolutely agree 100%. How many CEOs in his situation would be literally on the terraces as he was at the Leeds match. What people dont see or wish to see is that in order to try and make the business work, every bit of economising has been done at this club, especially on the admin staff side of things,whilst attempting to not hit the playing side of things. Bradford City run with lots more permanent staff than we do, and effectively the club has been asking the employees left, to fill various roles!

This could of course have turned out to be a false economy, as more workload often means lower quality, but over the last 6 years that has been the hand the club has been dealt. Your view whether they could have played it better will probably depend on a large portion of hindsight!!

The Likes of Debbie Robinson, Andrea in the shop, Duffy and Raz, (sorry if ive left anyone out) have effectively been left spinning far too many plates than they should have been! perhaps this has contributed to the situation, or perhaps it has delayed the inevitable?? who knows.

Hopefully some positive news will come form the meeting in the next 24 hours, followed in the next week by Coulby, Caisley et al announcing that the club is safe and we are moving onwards and upwards. I can dream cant i?

Oh and by the way. Ryan is genuinely in both Camp Caisley and Camp Hood! remember he's been at the club a lot longer than the years he's been CEO. IIRC, he first came to the club on work placemnet in the 95-96 centenary season! He could and should be the glue that could bring it all back together!

Has the Dark Lord moved in yet?

Elements I'd concur with THERE too. I'd like to see a CEO who is empowered by his chairman to act 100% in that role, without having to defer to the chairman on key day to day decisions and with the support structure in place so he can concentrate on being an effective CEO and not just a General Manager of Everything. Bit like Hetherington at Leeds. I felt that was a handicap Ryan was operating with under the Hood regime. Whether Caisley will afford his CEO - be it Ryan, Tasker or Donald Trump, any more scope and any more support resources I guess we'll just have to wait and see?

I think the little matter of Ryan (as last man standing) appointing him as a director probably needs to happen first?

But whilst I think Sauron on the board would scare the sheite out of the rest of the competition, we need to know about Caisley & co too...?

All very accurate.

Duckett for me should retain a place as a senior manager at the club, no question. I do however query his best fit as a CEO.

The aforementioned names have also contributed significantly over the years. Quite how Duffy may fit into that structure given his hatred of CC will be interesting. However the PR emanating from the club in recent years, has been dire.

Adey, quite correct, the Chairman will need to empower the CEO and I would also hope whoever both are have the nuts to stand and deliver and not be pacified with a proxy role. I'm not sure CC would want a nodding dog in any case. I may be wrong. It happened once...

It will be interesting to see if there are any material black holes (other than Odsal), and who puts investment in, Caisleys Hoods or both. It sounds as if Hoods have held back so it might just be that Caisley won the war by PR ie Coulbys revelations were aimed at putting off Hoods investors.

I desperately hope you are wrong with that assessment. The mere thought that one, or both, parties were playing politics with a club they both clearly have a great affection for, fills me with despair to be frank.

Ryan Duckett is a lovely guy. Having had the pleasure of working with him for a couple of years from 1999 onwards I was delighted when he was appointed.

I really hope he is kept on in a senior role.