To be perfectly honest, at this stage I would take either side that gets us through this month and has a plan for the rest of this franchise period and beyond that gets us on an even keel. I do not have enough inside knowledge to back one or the other fully tbf, I'll just have to trust in the powerbrokers to get the result we need, which is survival.

The one positive I do take from this is that the people involved in this new action must have some confidence that there will be a super league club to take over next week.

Well - this could be the best attended EGM since 1964. There are about 1000? small shareholders with 30%? between them iirc?

If they vote (person or proxy) then they could literally get to choose between Hood or Caisley as they have 20-25% each.

This could be put up or shut up time people.

You've been asking for more say in the club, time to use it.

In the same way that some people have not pledged because of Hood, how many would like to recall their pledge because of Caisley??????

Or give your proxy to Bullbuilder?? Has that been discussed?

So the face and voice of the Bulls could be a butcher from Ilkley?
How very northern.

I would hope the majority have pledged for the club rather than the personalities invloved. So the pledges should stand either way as long as they save the club. Lets have a club first and worry about personalities later.

Keep pledging people.

I think the guys listed are close to controlling 50% of the shares. Not sure if they actually exceed 50%. Can't check right now.

If Jack Bates does not back Hood, Caisley will carry the EGM regardless of what the small shareholders do. And even if he does, I suspect he will still carry it. Remember, Gary Tasker is himself (or was) one of the largest (may have been the largest) of those "other" shareholders.

I'm viewing it as a fait acompli by Mr Caisley at this stage.

Unfortunately we know that is not the case with many people on here stating that they won't pledge with Hood in charge.

Agree though, if you have not yet pledged - whoever is/will be in charge, [uplease pledge if you can[/u!

In order to fix something you often need the thing that broke it.

This week I've taken some criticism for delaying my pledge because I didn't want to back the current board, and I was convinced by people saying survival is everything and I should not base it on who is the boss. Now some of the same people are questioning whether to back caisley.
To me, it seems caisley is a catalyst here and one that was needed. Also, Tasker being involved is key. He was one of the main architects of our success, from being lottery manager, through being CEO, then iirc going to the rfl. He's local, and he knows how to build the business.

This can only be good news, it means that somebody (however some people may be wary of them) wants to take the club on.

Adey, would these current shareholders being an interested party make a prepack administration a possibility?

The "smalls" are around 25%. And they include Gary Tasker.

Agar and Coulby have declared for Hood. Unclear what Bates will do (if he is still able to). Those three held around 25% between them.

If Bates declares for Caisley, or abstains, Caisley wins.

One would presume Caisley would be chief string puller?

Well "Fate accomplished" as this could actually stall the pledge and push the Club into administration which looking at the timing is what he wants

Personally I'd take Mr Caisley over Mr Hood any time. I'm aware of his chequered past but I believe he is more likely to deliver successful rugby to The Bulls. That's surely what the majority of fans want?

Exactly my thinking.

The people really doing the hard work are those supporters, former players or other well-wishers giving time, money and prized possessions - most of the time the current board open their mouths they go a long way to hindering rather than helping.

People have said that but how stubborn are they actually when it comes to the crunch? I think thats mostly an excuse. For example my dad has pledged [idespite [/iHood, but he's also no fan of Caisley, but he wouldn't withdraw his pledge either way as its for the club.

Some are questioning his real intentions.

As others have alluded to on the face of it it's an extremely powerful and experienced consortium that Mr Caisley has put together.

Well one positive of CC being back in charge would be that (hopefully) he'd stop touting all our junior talent to Russell Crowe!

Not so much a prepack - you can only really do one of those from the inside.

They would still have to do the due dilligence - the statement says that in code - so there would be a delay. However, at least that lot would have an inside track which would likely reduce that period to a minimum. Especially if they get Ryan onside.

If they end up engineering it so the club goes into administration, the pledge money will do nothing to help the club going forward. If Mr Hood and Mr Bennett believe they are being so engineered, they cannot call in the pledges. My tentative conclusion is that it is in the club's and fans interests to continue with the pledge campaign. And, same argument applies, regardless of who will be in charge in the future. Since without it administration would seem to be a certainty anyway. But I need to think about this a lot more, and I think some official statements would be more than a bit useful. time precludes that right now

Your wrong there Mick aren't most inc Caisley part of the old guard that allowed Caisley to spend spend beyond the Clubs means??

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

Any change that secures the clubs future is a good one!

Effectively caisley is saying that hood/Bennett isn't working. Nothing new there. He's also trying to get respected "experts" to work with Ryan in looking at what needs to be done/changed. Can't see anything wrong with that. And he's trying to get the shareholders to come out and show their hand!

Good on him!

Incidentally, the T&A seems to be nailing its colours well and truly to the mast.

This is the biggest danger for me, let's finish the job of the pledge and only then worry about who's going to be running the club. It's interesting that CC has come out now as it appears we are close to achieving the goal, personally I think he's been flushed out early.

Doing this now is absolutely the wrong time to do it, why no mention of the pledge, why not use the press he'll get with this to ask people to help hit the target. It'll sow doubt in people's mind at exactly the wrong time, some would argue that's exactly it's purpose