The continued use of the term 'bought' in reference to the clubs success under Noble is a clear and purposeful attempt to smear his achievements. At best it suggests they were not earned on the pitch of play and at worst it suggests corruption. This is unfair and incorrect.

Returning to your original post. What does this paragraph actually mean?
'Chairman and head coach went. A lot still to be said about that time, but from the things I hear and saw there is no way I would ever want either back. And go ask yourself why Fielden really went? One day it will come out in the autobiographies.'

To refer to the cost of sacking Macnamara whilst not accepting that the board's decision to give him a 4 1/2 year deal was extraordinary and disastrous is, in my view, more than just a simple omission.

'We did not sign Brett Ferres. He was one of our youngsters who we managed to lose.' This is plain wrong. He was used in the deal to get Solomona after stating he didn't want to leave.

I've never heard Hood make a statement in the media stating that the Harris affair cost the club £3 million but if he has I'll accept it. Despite this we have spent the full salary cap in all but one of the years SM was coach.

On Burgess, I have no doubt that he been at Wigan, Leeds, saints he would have waited until later in his career to pursue a career in Australia.

I don't know precisely what happened in the Orford affair because it is covered by a confidentiality clause in order to prevent the fans from knowing exactly what happened. That kind of makes the point I'm afraid.

We've already debated the 'sugar daddy' issue before but it remains my view that the reason we don't have one is that the club is not, and never has been up for sale.

As per usual when you are challenged on your official history you return to this paranoid nonsense of who is close to which camp. For your information I've never met Chris Caisley in my life. Many of the points you make are salient and correct. However, by not making one single reference to the decisions of the administration post-Caisley. you absolve the current BOD for a series of decisions which have been extremely poor.
In doing so, a more cynical person would suggest you are the unofficial means by which the current administration tells the supporters what it is not prepared to say publicly.

you seem to have too big a squad of ineffective players imo. would be better spreading the cost over fewer decent players

In hindsight probably.

You are such a perceptive one aint you....wish I could think as clearly as you!

Ive not read all of this thread,but you said you started in 64 !well your a long way offthe same situationas Northern were in 63-64 and the previous years that lead up to the liquidation of the old clubyour not getting crowds measured in the 100s and you wont be getting crowds of that level,but it is a very worrying situation,If the Giants win SL this year they could attract a lot of the support you had this year on the cut price tickets