Lovely guys don't always make the best gaffers !

Sometimes they don't, though the alternative of an absolute ars*ho*e dealing on your behalf may not get you the goodwill and end results you want.
To automatically perceive a nice guy as being weak in decision making and strength of management would be to belie their skills in positive business relationships.
Ryan is a quality guy in private and his work on behalf of the Bulls
He is the only person to retain some credit from the recent debacle

I also though it was very important that Ryan came out in fulsome support of Mick Potter. Potter has also said he wanted to stay and that he was hoping the present situ was resolved so we could re-sign players and enter the market. Hopefully, this means both he and Ryan are fully expecting him to stay.

Well here is the latest www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... mmentsList

Well here is the latest www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... mmentsList

Board of Directors is now Coulby, Agar and Duckett. EGM 'scrapped' Caisley to head up 'strategic review' + talks with 'potential investors' ongoing. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _scrapped/

Board of Directors is now Coulby, Agar and Duckett. EGM 'scrapped' Caisley to head up 'strategic review' + talks with 'potential investors' ongoing. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _scrapped/

Quote ="Blotto"Well here is the latest www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... mmentsList'" I notice my comments disappeared rather quickly, someone at the Taliban is being over sensitive or Caisley could be sleeping with the editor! You can now see there are comments but you can't access them!

Quote ="Blotto"Well here is the latest www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... mmentsList'" I notice my comments disappeared rather quickly, someone at the Taliban is being over sensitive or Caisley could be sleeping with the editor! You can now see there are comments but you can't access them!

Quote ="paulwalker71"Board of Directors is now Coulby, Agar and Duckett. EGM 'scrapped' Caisley to head up 'strategic review' + talks with 'potential investors' ongoing. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _scrapped/'" Thats the worrying quote "potential investors". I thought CC had people lined up

Quote ="paulwalker71"Board of Directors is now Coulby, Agar and Duckett. EGM 'scrapped' Caisley to head up 'strategic review' + talks with 'potential investors' ongoing. www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _scrapped/'" Thats the worrying quote "potential investors". I thought CC had people lined up

notice theres also a statement that no further comments will be made til after the review is finished. The old board was poor at getting information out and was rightly criticised for it. The new board has set its stall out early and simply said they are going to keep us in the dark officially.

Why does Caisley need to consider how involved he can afford to be? surely he's had last month or two to make that decision. Seems a strange comment that he now needs time to think about it.

He's probably going to see how bad things are (or not) before committing himself. He's probably realised he's not flavour of the month as he had hoped and might want to find a way of winning the fans over?

Not sure how he'll do it, as taking us into Administration would pee off the majority, while saying the club can survive justify's Hoods recent actions to a degree, which I doubt he (CC) would like to do.

The other option might be that he "brings" some investment with him after they have carried out the review and his investors claim that they do so only with CC being on the board?

I suspect that Ryan Duckett is on an extended interview before CC decides how much of the day to day decision making he's prepared to delegate.

I've invested probably thousands in Bradford Bulls/Northern over the years. I've not heard a word from Caisley's people about investing more. My patience is wearing thin.

The 'new' board is, to some extent, the previous one but with CC in the background. [iThat[/i board was never very forthcoming with info to be honest, so why anyone would expect it now I can't imagine. Most clubs give fans the rhubarb treatment, mostly for sound business reasons to be fair - just because we'd like to know doesn't always mean it's in the club's best interests to make things public.

We can all speculate till the cows come home, but it seems clear they have issued a press release and that is that for now.

I've not come across an EGM being cancelled before, so I'm unsure what the legal position is but they must be happy it's OK. Obviously, the samll shareholders are now denied the opportunity of making their voices heard.

I'd very much like to know who the accountant carrying out the review is, and in particular what his personal specialisation is - especially if it is in insolvency.

Its interesting that the backers that the Caisley camp seemed to suggest were waiting in the wings seem to be rather more tentative than we were perhaps encouraged to believe. I guess its premature to read too many bad things into that, given it is perhaps understandable that people will be reluctant to commit until the uncertainties are resolved, but it would have been nice had that been made a bit more clear earlier? Of course, if such prospective backers were of the view - for whatever reason - that they will only put money into Newco and not the existing company, then we could well end up being told that administration is the only option, and creditors not being paid and the pledge money counting for naught, if new funds are to be secured. Or if maybe the review concludes that the only way such prospective backers will commit is if they start with a clean sheet - even though that was never alluded to before. But I'm falling into the trap of speculating! It is to be hoped that there is no pre-ordained agenda, and that all parties want to avoid administration at all costs.

As for Caisley not being appointed as a director now, that will doubtless be a cause of much speculation, regardless of how much power he actually wields behind the scenes. One possibility is that he distances himself from any decisions that involve putting the club into administration, so he feels he is not tarnished by association or involvement when people end up losing money. That is not an uncommon situation, and in my view would be quite understandable. I guess that, if nothing else, staying off the baord for now keeps his options open, which may be the prudent course of action until the review is concluded.

Another possibility that has been raised by several folk on the T&A in particular is that they seem to "knopw" or believe that the RFL does not deem Caisley to be a fit and proper person to run a SL club. Although several have stated this as if fact, I must admit I have never ever seen this referred to anywhere official - nor would I have expected to, even if it happened to have some legs. So those folk either have some inside/confidential information, or are just speculating or repeating gossip. I'll work on the assumption that it is the latter, unless it is ever shown to be otherwise. There is far too much dangerous gossip flaoting around as it is.

Or maybe he is genuinely unsure of how much he wants to get involved day to day again? Especially if, as they say, they don't yet know the full position untikl the review is completed. After all, who the hell would want that thankless job? No pay, lost of work, LOTS of flak from the fans (much of which doubtless uninformed and/or unjustified) and no small amount of very personal abuse - you'd either have to be very very passionate about the club, have huge self-confidence and ego or be very naïve IMO to take the job on! Indeed, some on places like the T&A have suggested that, and suggested that he wanted to stand down earlier than he did the last time because he had a young family to see. That would make perfectv sense to me, tbh, although if not him then who? Maybe a key decision is how much real power to delegate to the CEO, be that Duckett, Tasker, or whoever - like the Hetherington situation at Leeds? And especially any decision regarding bringing Tasker in as CEO and what Noble's role would be, and where that then leaves Duckett and Duffy? I could easily see a key decision being whether the chair role remains executive, or becomes more non-executive.

I certainly believe that, later in his first tenure, Caisley was feeling let down by the fans. A number of reasons, one of which being his response to how fans responded to one of his public attacks on the fans for not turning up in enough numbers - which concern was clearly and understandably IMO worrying him greatly, as I saw with my own eyes. In that case (and it was not that long before he stepped down, and was the first hint I had that he might) he said that he hoped his successor would find the job a bit easier than he had. I still have a copy of the email where he said that. And I must admit its hard not to sympathise, since in that job you are damned whatever you do. So it is far from impossible that he indeed is unsure how much commitment now to give?

But it's all speculation, and only he knows the extent to which any of the above may or may not be pertinent. I guess we'll just have to sit it out an wait until they next decide to tell us something. I'd doubt that the hopes of many fans, for more openness and engagement, will be realised in the short term, since much of what will be going on will be commercially sensitive. And understandably so IMO. Beyond that, I guess that is too far ahead right now.

There's a very careful balance here between identifying the critical weaknesses at the club, determining what realistic options there may be moving forward and logically, identifying the depth and reason from any financial black hole before feeding the desire for information to supporters.

We live in an age of immediate news media whether it be here twitter, Facebook or fans forums. But that comes with dangers of nigh on every fan or consumer thinking their specific viewpoint has some business validity, when unfortunately, bar a few exceptions, very few have.

CC, RA and SC will seemingly carry out any review before revealing their poker hand. To do otherwise would be competely foolhardy. It's that simple.

What is clear is that as a club we have very few alternative options, I for one, would rather see the outcome of their assessment before passing comment. Given that, good luck to them. Bagging them prior to or during a review is quite simply, daft.

Some fair point there and as you say it's difficult to speculate given the relativity of track record of some involved.

What I would say is I find the RFL's judgement of CC to not be fit and proper is somewhat ironic given that they have given away prestigious headline sponsorship of the flagship competition for nothing. Literally. That they feel they can criticise someone who has built up a multi million pound business and represents the likes of Theo Walcott, Steve McLaren, Alex Oxlade Chamberlain and even the current Rangers takeover by Brian Kennedy, is beautifully ironic. Nigel Wood, has my utter contempt as an individual and a CEO of a major sport.

That aside, it would be simply foolish for the potential roll out of the board to be revealed, given that logically, no review has even been carried out as yet. It does however seem clear that a pragmatic and effective way forward is what the new regime is angling towards with transparency when it is prudent to do so. Revealing levels of debt or otherwise would make no sense with investors keen to see an outcome prior to commitment.

Similarly, I'm not certain Nobby carrying out an independent review of the football side of the club necessarily leads to his appointment as head coach. Similarly with Tasker or CCs involvement. What is clear is there are names with both a track record of success and the ability to change the landscape if it's needed. Quite how existing members of the staff may fit in remains to be seen. Some are clearly very good at their roles, others perhaps past their best or simply not upto the job. What is clear is that there will be change. It's about time. We've p*ssed about living on the Bulls dream for too long with zero substance.

As you say our , speculation is just that.

Strangest bit was where CC is apparently to become a 'consultant'; this the bloke who thought going for Iestyn Harris was a good idea...! Still, as I've posted before, hopefully he will have learnt lessons from previous mistakes, so let's hope for the best.

Well, I for one never believed that there is any rich backer, on either side.

That is, I'm sure both sides will have had a number of discussions with parties who they hoped could be persuaded, but the problem we have is the difference between acquiring (1) a rich backer who sees their funds as in any way at all some sort of "investment"; and (2) a rich backer who just wants the club to succeed and is prepared to throw away large sums of money to that end.

No (2) has ever been sighted in these parts, not even a fleeting rear glimpse in the woods, and there are not even rumours of the existence of one.

And anyone of type (1) looking at it as a straight business investment in the harsh light of day would obviously conclude that it just isn't one. No club is.

A decent sponsor or two wouldn't go amiss, but IMHO that's the best we can hope for. I can't see any backer wanting to do their cash in, in large amounts, perrennially, riding into the fray any time soon.

Where does that leave us? Well, until Robin Hood does arrive, having to cut our cloth accordingly, and stop pretending that we can compete on a level playing field with the likes of Wire, as without a (2), it is pie in the sky. I can see ways in which an administration can be avoided - although I put the chances at no better than 50-50 - but I can only see us as a selling club for the foreseeable.

Musical chairs with various levels of personnel may occur, and is all very well, but money is the one commodity that could make the real difference, and it's the one thing we have neither got, nor look in danger of getting.

Never have I hoped more that I am wrong. I hope the new Board have a Euromillions sydicate going, you never know.

On Adey's post, it was Coulby who said CC wanted to step down earlier due to a young family and was persuaded to stay on.
Plus his role as a sports agent maybe conflicted were he to take up a directorship. perhaps he's in the proces of resolving this now.

On GB's post I agree that neither Tasker or Noble's input would necessarily mean they were looking for a long term role. Both are lifelong Northern/Bulls fans probably as sad as we are at what has befallen us.

I think perhaps we've all analysed the Harris saga to the enth degree. We've all made significant errors in business; however the further up the ladder the bigger the fall. Hood also made serious mistakes (hence where we are now) but bashing these folks when it suits the mantra isn't the positive energy that is needed right now. Clean slate and all that.

As for Ducketts long term involvement, it would be foolish to lose his skills and ability to conduct himself impeccably in a sandstorm. I'm not sure he will remain CEO but that's no bad thing providing his replacement is high quality.

As Maislebugs said, a poster whom I seem to agree on most things, both Noble and Tasker are lifelong Bulls/Northern fans with extremely strong track records. I think their "agenda" is quite simply objectively review and take it from there. And that for me, is perfect sense.

I'd honestly not read too much into the wording, and certainly nothing sinister. Its almost certainly codespeak for explaining how CC can play a very major role now, without actually being on the board and having director responsibilities and laibilities, IMO. Quite common for someone to be brought in as a "consultant" for form's sake, but with the possibility or intent or aspiration of ultimately taking on executive responsibilities - in fact, that is exactly how I ended up in my own present role...!

What I truly hope, going forward, is that we have a board and/or executive team that together have the skills and expertise and experience that befits an operation of this scale and nature. And each their own man (or woman) and not just yes-men. In recent years we have clearly been desperately constrained by lack of money, leading IMO to too few capable people being asked to spread themselves far too thinly. Whether any sugar daddy will manifest himself to resolve this problem as it has for Wire and Pies and Hudds and Hull etc is pretty debatable IMO.

Inceidentally, I forgot to mention above that another reason CC may not be able to determine his future role just now is the potential conflict of interest being a player's agent. Not sure how say a Leeds player would feel if his manager was the chairman of a rival club! This might not be a five minute job to sort out, so its another reason why undue speculation is probably futile and counter-productive right now.

And I see that while I was typing MB already made the point re CC's existing commitments. And thanks to him for noting where the young family comments had come from - I knew I'd read it on the T&A but could not remember whetehr it was from forum posts or in an article

Speaking of 'expertise', what do we know about Stephen Coulby and Roland Agar?

I've heard their names before, obviously, but I don't know anything about them. What expertise in business, marketing, strategic skills etc, do they bring to the situation?

The issue of CC being a plaers' agent is a big elephnat in the room and should not be underestimated. Personally I can't see how you could be a director, and at the same time an agent of a club player, as there seems to be potential for an utterly hopeless conflict of interests.

I was never comfortable with one of our largest shareholders being the agent for the likes of Sam, but it's legal, and that's a personal matter for the shareholder, who has no duties towards the club, unlike a director. (Nor in Sam's case was it instrumental as he'd have gone whoever his agent was.)

Does anyone know if a club director can under RFL rules also be a players' agent? If they can, I still don't think they should.

I'm not sure a sugar daddy is a prudent way forward. But then, nor should we ignore a "gimme"

An effective business model where in absolutely simplistic terms, we are earning more than we are spending doesn't require George Osbournes input. Far too many sporting entities are highly ineffective in this country and wouldn't survive in any other business sector.

As for CCs family commitment, we all have those and we can all re-adjust those for the right opportunities. It's a flexible term by its definition of timescale, that is, his young children have grown up somewhat. His choice either way I suppose.

The issue of being a player agent I don't see as being an issue, should a player from a "rival" club not deem it to be one. There's also an assumption that he will continue this in an RL capacity as opposed to the focus of his core agent work in football and RU. The sale of Sam Burgess probably secured our future longer than we realise. Either way, I can't see it being an issue unless the geniuses at the RFL determine otherwise, and them taking on a solicitor would be brave, or players in RL he represents have an issue with it. Right now, I don't feel it's a core element in the impending review.

Roland Agar is a wholesale butcher. He owns the slaughterhouse in Ilkley and has a sizeable wholesale meat business, and so I suspect is a no-nonsense real-world businessman. He also has very active involvement with the academy.

I have seen it said that coulby is a banker or similar, but know nothing of his background or expertise.