If correct this is a disgrace and perhaps explains my post on another thread.

No Official source that i can name but a few of the texts have been true before.

We all knew it was coming.

We just need the lads like Bateman, Obrien, Whitehead, Donaldson not to sign if they are sold. Administrators can only sell players if they are willing to sign for another club.

I still can't see how this can help with cash flow.
All I can think is that CC has investors lined up, but unwilling to commit with the ridiculous share structure we have now.
If true, let's just hope it's some kind of pre-pack or whatever, the RFL agree to switch the lease over to the newco, and everyone is promptly re-signed before the vultures begin to circle.

Clutching at straws with most of the above, I know.

Who could such other creditors be?

That is if we were lied to when we were told at various times and by different people that the club was now debt free.

I can't see there would be any other significant creditors because I can't see anyone would lend to the club!

Is this true or a load of coz it's got my blood boiling

Should be obvious from the above that nobody has a clue.

Caisley + Coulby quoted 'finances worse than thought, losses month on month etc'!

Bennett + Hood + Incredibullman (who has access to Hood's private correspondence) quoted 'finances in good shape, debt free, 200k in bank'.

They can't both be right can they? One, or perhaps both of these groups are outright liars as they are incompatable positions.

What texts have been true before? Are these the same sources that said Thomas Cook were gonna be shirt sponsors?

Might be true, might not. Like all internet rumours caveat emptor applies...in spades.

Given that most of what each camp has been quoted as saying is subjective and lacking in substance, I suggest it is fair to say that each camp is selectively spinning. I gather that the "finances worse than first thought" comment was strongly disputed from within the club. People, especially I feel the new lot, have been playing very much to the public gallery. Just look at how many people believed CC had promised new investment when he said no such thing? Or how many people believed tax bills had mysteriously appeared out of the blue?

How do you know the leaker is not someone who has been given the letter from within the Caisley camp?

I can only assume by 'playing to the public gallery' you mean that Coulby has made public statements which could be challenged in a similar manner rather than your preferred method of communication which appears involve unnamed persons telling you in private.

You know the leaker isn't from the Caisley camp so I'm unsure why you'd suggest it a possibility.

You are doing it agian. It is dishonest and I wish you would stop.

YOU are saying (and wrongly) what my preferred method of communication is. I have neither said nor implied any such thing.

I do not know the leaker is not from the Caisley camp. When it was first posted I thought it probably WAS. Kindly stop making false accusations.

I specifically referred to statements which are clearly subjective and incapable of objective verification. Example "finances worse than first thought" - by whom? What WAS first thought? What precisely is meant by "Finances" anyway?

Once agian you are seeking to have readers believe I said something quite different to what I actually said. It is disingenous and dishonest, and is something you should not need to resort to if you believe you have a strong argument. It is no better than what the protagonists in the battle for control strife have been doing, and there is no place for it in reasoned debate. I have tried to debate reasonably with you, but if you would prefer I resort to your tactics then I will. I really would prefer not to because you contribute very much TO the debate. So why spoil it by being silly?

Really? Playing to the public gallery wasn't used as a perjorative term?

So when you 'gather(ed) that the "finances worse than first thought" comment was strongly disputed from within the club,' you gathered that from the ether did you? Did it come with a confidentiality clause?

Your accusation of dishonesty is ironic as you counsel the rest of us to beware the subjective claims of either side whilst you yourself post what amounts to a thesis in defence of the old board, regurgitating that which they dare not utter in public.

I have always wanted to give you the benefit of doubt, believing you were a victim of the 'media management' coming out of the club rather than an agent of it but I'm less and less convinced.

Having read the content, and indeed responded to some of Incredibullman's posts in which he states,
"The new "old" regime were aiming to put the club to the sword but the finances were not as bad as they had anticipated."
And then claim you did not know the leaker was not from the Caisley camp is pathetic.

If this is true, then we should all go round to Hood's house and get our £100 back.

No, if by that you suggest I was being partisan, since I specifically referred to both camps doing it.



Yes it did. But not from within the club. From nowhere near the club. For that reason, I will tell you by PM where it came from, if you wish, but will not breach confidentiality on a public forum.



No. I have been critical of both camps. You can see me being so even today, on here. Playing you game, I could say it may not suit your purposes for that inconvenient truth to be stated, but I have. Not least in both helping to write, putting my name to, and standing behind on here, the last Bullbuilder statement that I recall at the time you applauded.

You can have no idea whether the old BoD's failure to refute the selective allegations coming from the Caisley camp is because they "dare not" or because they "choose not to" or because they "are advised not to". Neither can I. So don't go stating things and attributing to me views that suit what is clearly your own partisan argument when you can neither support nor justify them.

Don't patronise me. I am quite capable of forming my own views and, unlike you it seems, amending or changing those views if further information comes to light. And you in turn make your own views quite clear by how you word that sentence. No objectivity there, you hypocrite.

And I have stated categorically that what I post on here is what I think. It is not what someone else tells me to say. If you are saying I am a liar - and I am not - please for once be honest and say so categorically. And prove it.



If you are going to call me pathetic on a public forum, then I have no qualms about calling you biased and dishonest.

I do not know who the leaker is. Do you? When the letter was first posted, your reaction on here was quite clearly one of someone who assumed the leak was from the Caisley camp. I'd normally preface that with "IMO" but, following your lead, I'll just post it as a statement. I of course have no idea what you actually assumed, but that has never stopped you from stating what I must have assumed or intended or known.

My first assumption - and unlike you I'm quite happy to be honest - was that it was from within the Caisley camp, since it seemed clearly to me to be setting the scene for a "well we tried, but you can see what we had to deal with and they refused to listen" PR campaign in support of subsequent actions. As I said.

Seeing the subsequent posts by him puts the motives in a new light, and suggests my original deduction was incorrect. (Have I ever seen you admit you may have been mistaken?). Indeed, I have a strong suspicion now who it is. But that has happened TODAY. And I could be just as wrong as I was before.

It could be someone originally from the Caisley camp who is unhappy with how matters are turning out; it could be someone who feels that the actions of the Hood administration have been misrepresented; it could be someone who feels their position is at risk under a new administration; it could be none of the above, just someone who has been sent the information anonymously (and it happens - go ask Bullseye about things like that with BISA and the "back to Odsal" business).

I have my own idea, but I most certainly do not know. Nor do some other people who have a lot more reason than me to wish to know, one of whom I was speaking to only an hour ago. Do you know something that we do not? If you do NOT, then your own comment is as pathetic as you believe me to be.

Why?

Before the remaining Bulls fans all challenge each other to a duel - there is a high probability this "leaked" letter was dropped in the Bulls office by Shiek Assad Ben loadsamoney Mugabeavitch who had just offered PH a £2.5m investment before going round to inspect the new honourable member in Bradford.

Of course the "finances" are bad because the cash expected to come in over the next few months does not cover the amount committed to go out - but they are not as bad as they were before the pledge - which I contributed to unconditionally - and i think the pledge showed if the new BoD were open with us all then they could proably raise the funds needed to see us into the new season at least from the fans. Of course this talk of administration could relate less to the "finances" and more to the tearing up of existing share certificates?

Because there was no point in collecting it in the first place if administration was the only option. The fundraising will have merely delayed the inevitable.

Because it's been taken under false pretences.

If we had been asked to contribute £100 to see another 5 games of rugby before administration, then fine. I would have still be happy to do so. But that's not what we were told is it? We were told that the pledges would not be called in, etc, yada, yada...
So we were lied to.
Oh no, sorry, no we were not lied to ever were we?

I have a sneaky feeling this could be a windup. I guess we'll see tomorrow or Wednesday though.

Gotta love this guy. Another who sees right through the transparent one.

If administrators are appointed, it will be the new BoD not the old.

And, as Northern Relic observes, not necessarily for just financial reasons.

Surely your ire should be directed at the new BoD should that transpire? Since you can have no idea whatsoever whether, left to their own devices, the previous BoD would have appointed or been able to carry on.

wonder what gives you that sneaky feeling? wouldnt be OP's history of starting rumours that turn out to have no substance would it? thomas cook and asotasi to name a couple

And that very over-zealous caveat outlines precisely as to how thoroughly misguided you have been over a period of months as to the current predicament.

As for your attempted pull-up of Maiselbugs' very logical and accurate observations of your fog-ridden deduction and "inside knowledge", what a dire repost and mitigation for your standpoint. The foot stamping "do not say this", "do not do that" is quite spectacular toy throwing. You are the very point of origin for deductions and assumptions. Your irony is quite beautiful.

Your defence of the previous BoD defies belief. Similarly your spurious claim to be self-aware as to your admittance of 'error' is equally fog-ridden. Camp Caisley have made very few public announcements and yet you have utilised your (some may say jaundiced) knowledge of all things legal to smokescreen some of us less learned with what the "actuality" is, when, on the contrary, it most certainly is not. You have concluded and deducted at every point in the last few months. For you to play Speaker of the Commons and Mr Objective when it now suits your narrative, is farcical.

Maiselbugs has simply tied you in knots as to your assumptions and deducations. You have bagged the current review team before you even know the outcome. And done so with high moral ground that would rival Everest. And that, more than anything, is quite ridiculous.

He has done no such thing. And I thought I made it clear that the tone of my response was merely to reflect his own. If my post is "dire", it speaks volumes for the style of he whose approach I merely emulated.

Your own bias has been and continues to be so totally extreme as to grant you no grounds for criticising the standpoint of others.