Tasker was involved in all the switch to SL with us and is highly thought of IIRC.

At least if Caisley takes over we'll have an expert in contract employment law with a good record in winning litigation issues.

Are these people willing to come in and work for nowt, or are we adding a couple of hundred £ to the pay bill?

Maybe they're going to replace existing staff members?

I hope thy are all out of there current contracts.

Ooooh my thread has got 100 pages

If Caisley takes over the club stand to lose at lot of the goodwill that Hood & co have garnered from the rest of SL. If the timing of this proves anything it is that Caisley is still a vindictive sort, putting his own ego first. If he really has the interests of the club at heart he wouldn't have played such an active role in the departure of Sam Burgess (and possibly others). It will only be a matter of time before the feud with Hetherington is re-ignited (or new 'players' such as Pearson at Hull) and you are back in the old cycle. To be honest I think you would be better off without Caisley or Hood, shame there doesn't appear to be another option.

Nowhere does it say that they are coming back full time, just to do a review.

Those who work for nowt already?

Something else we can thank Caisley for.

I think Andrew Bennett may be the dark horse in this power struggle.


Lets wait and see though.

...and there are the horns of the dilemma

I agree we'd be better off without either of them, but there simply does not seem to be another option on the table at this moment in time.

The worst thing about the Harris affair isn't the loss of cash it's the loss of integrity. The fact is he already had a contract with another side in the league. It was simply wrong to try and get one over another team in the league. I thought as a sport trying to grow it's interest we should all be pulling together.

Winning, losing neither matters as long as the game be played a right.

Because in his position, and without my own moral standpoint about screwing creditors and the taxman that can sometimes be my own worst enemy, I would do the same.

If:

1 - I was confident enough that I had a plan and resources in place such that I could fund the administrator for a few weeks to keep the business intact and not sell assets;
2 - I could tip the wink to the players and Ryan and others that I'd see them OK;
3 - I had already been through all my plans with the RFL, got them onside and got their informal agreement that I was a "fit and proper person" to own a club holding a SL Licence
4 - I had already obtained the RFL's informal agreement about assigning the lease to NewCaisleyBullsCo
5 - I did indeed have a costed plan in place, and that even though I would probably use the Due Dilligence as an excuse to force administration, my plans assumed that;
6 - I had cleared it with the council, and ensured that the administrator would end up with enough realisations to satisfy their charge on the assets (presumably to cover the Odsal settlement run-off and maybe council tax?)

Then, if I did not have to look at myself too closely in the mirror, or at the suppliers and other creditors who I would be screwing over, I would say it made sound business sense for me. Since I would:

1 - Save a load of money by getting rid of some serious tax bills - screwing the taxpayer
2 - Get out of the remaining obligation to repay the council - keeping them sweet by seeing they were (legally) paid in preference to other creditors
3 - Get out of any other onerous commitments and obligations - screwing the suppliers or prioviders of the service
4 - Get rid of all the other shareholders, who would not get a penny
5 - See my revenge on Hood as complete.

That is why.

But I could personally not do that. Which is why I am not a wealthy man, but I can sleep at night.

Did anyone notice that there was no mention of the fans in any of that?

Oh and as much as I love board room politics and find it all exciting it's a bit too much to take when the club I love is days away from possibly going into administration. We should all have woken up positive and should be taking about the fundraising events that are about to take place over the next 36 hours.

I'm only going to talk about the walk tomorrow and the excellent 24 hr push for pledges from the wheelchair rugby team starting tonight. They're something worth giving time too.

Most people fell the same you just put it more eloquently

The worst thing about the Harris affair was that Mr Caisley assured us fans (and who knows who else?) that there were no contractual arrangements in place that were an impediment to us signing Harris. Despite Mr Hetherington loudly protesting that there were, and that he had made "the Bulls" aware of them. And Mr Hetherington was subsequently exonerated by Mr Justice Gray regarding the contracts. We have never been officially told whether He was alos right about what "the Bulls" were made aware of before they signed Harris.

This last point seems to me to be crucial, since us NOT knowing seemed to me to facilitate the "Mainstream Developments" defence to an action for inducement to breach contract. if we DID know, despite what Mr Caisley said at the time when IMO he was more worried about a pìssing contest with Hetherington than was healthy, then IMO our defence was likley to be weakened considerably.

I've often wondered whether Mr Caisley would have been prepared to swear on oath that he was never made aware of the pertinent details of the contracts before the signing, and whether Mr Hetherington would have been prepared to swear that he WAS. Because if they BOTH so swore, one of them would surely be purjuring himself? As it transpired, we never got to find out because the Bulls post-Caisley concluded - and I understand after taking full legal advice - that the risks of being found to have been in the wrong, in the face of a £3.2m + costs action, were too great. So we can only make of all that what we will.

All I know is, I believed and trusted Mr Caisley in all he said at the time. And I ended up looking a total fool for so doing.

Thanks Adey. CC would always be vulnerable to a coalition of shareholders doing this exact same thing once his ego started to get the better of him again. He needs to have more than 25% of shares and the best way is for him to end up with somewhere between 75-100% after administration. (I would assume that Tasker & Coulby et al would get a few shares in return)

Indeed we should.

Maybe the timing is just the timing? Maybe Mr Caisley was worried that the resurgence in pledges yesterday (and I suggest no thanks to the club) was suddenly making it look like the campaign is on for succeeding after all? Maybe it took him till then to put his consortium together and feel confident enough to go public? Maybe he was waiting for the best time to queer the pitch for Hood? We can only conjecture.

Tell you one thing.

Mr Caisley is winning the PR battle hands down. Or, maybe more to the point, Mr Hood is losing it.

Personally, I feel after a number of past experiences that I can never again trust anything Mr Caisley says. But that is irrelevant if he wins and the club continues and - hopefully - thrives. The club is bigger than any of the individuals, even Mr Caisley, and our primary concern has to be the survival and long-term future of the club.

I just hope, if he does win, that Mr Caisley will prove to be a less divisive figure in the game than he was before.

No man with a 'tache like that would look in the mirror.

Just need to wait for the other shoe to drop now.

Cue Mr Hood,stage left. A responce sooner rather than later I would hope from the club? The T&A article mentions a comment from Hood "last night" so he's had time to think about it.

"[iHood said [ulast night [/uthat he would consider Caisley’s comments and issue a response today, but praised the efforts of fans after the ‘Quest for Survival’ campaign hit the £311,500 mark[/i"

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/17622969[/url

"[iHood is expected to respond to Caisley's comments later on Thursday[/i"