I have several, high level contacts within the club.

Just might be worth observing that, on a comments thread on the T&A following the article about Preston's pronouncements, they have seemingly culled 20 posts. Two at least of such posts were mine. They seem to still be culling as I type this.

Since I am normally quite careful what I post, mindful of forum rules and the wider issues of defamation etc, I am unclear why this might be.

The thread was generally pretty critical of both Mr Preston and Mr Caisley.

One of the posts of mine that they have culled (I see it is 21 they have culled now - another of mine has gone) was a verbatim extract from the 2004 annual report. The part that showed in Caisley's own words just how well aware he was of the plummeting financial position before he stood down, and the likely consequences, and how he held the fans responsible for failing to turn out in increasing numbers.

In my preamble, I explained that, whilst I was angry when I first read his comments back then, I have since grown to have some sympathy with the position he found himself in, and in him issuing what was effectively a plea - albeit not worded as it might have been. Somewhere back on here a few months a go, I posted pretty well the same.

Maybe that particular post, and some of the others culled, contained some inconvenient truths - who knows? Maybe someone thought the subject matter was getting dodgy, although given some of the thoroughly libelous garbage that regularly appears on the comments threads on there I had assumed they never bothered with any form of moderation.

Make of it all what you will, anyway.

Hmmmmm.

Here, anyway, is the extract from the 2004 Annual Report that I posted. I have inserted paragraph breaks to make it easier to read, but otherwise it is verbatim straight from the pdf download (Acrobat is my friend...)

[iOff the field we struggled with a disappointing downturn in attendances. This was a major and totally unexpected blow to our plans. Our average crowds were down significantly which lead to a consequential drop in ticket and gate income for the year as against budget.

Given the hugely successful 2003 season and the adversity which we had to overcome in 2004 the Board was surprised and concerned at the sudden lack of support which saw average crowds fall by over 1,000 per home game. Commercial sales also performed badly against budget. We reduced salaries by £266,000 over the year, but overall turnover remained static and total costs increased by £217,000. After depreciation there was a negative cash loss to the business in the region of £296,000.

Clearly, the business cannot continue to sustain such losses year on year and there will be a need to cut overheads and/or increase turnover. Of course, the biggest expense is the player wage bill, but in sport it is not just as simple as reducing those costs. The Club needs to remain competitive which requires that it has good quality players and a good junior development structure, all of which comes at a price. Therefore, there will be a push to increase the number of spectators attending games in 2005 and our commercial sales department will be tasked with the job of securing additional inward investment.

The fact remains that if Bradford wants a rugby league team to remain at the top of the sport and the pride of the city in terms of the prestige and the recognition which we bring then the people of Bradford will have to begin supporting the Club in ever increasing, not decreasing, numbers. I suspect that supporters will have to understand and accept that success can only be maintained for so long as the support remains high.

I believe that the Club has done its "bit" over the past 9 years or so to justify the essential amount of supporter loyalty which has not been evident in what has been a difficult year for the Club. I hope we can, and it is vital that we do put this right over the next 2 years.[/i

I've only met him once, just happened to be sat next to him at the Broncos v Bulls game in 1997. On that occasion he was sat in the crowd with the rest of the Bulls fans. I fully accept the right of people to question his credentials to be involved in determining the future direction of the club. But he certainly didnt come across as a freeloader. Nice enough bloke who was very definitely a genuine fan.

Not at all. There is a clear consensus in this thread that the T and A is biased towards Chris Caisley. Elsewhere, there are posters being accused of being 'proxy's for Caisley' without a shred of evidence. The frequent use of the term 'agenda' is as a perjorative. The T and A has apparently printed articles 'timed precisley to do maximium damage to the pledge' etc.

I'm sorry, I think there's a loss of perspective here and because of a particularly nuanced version of events being continuously leaked onto these boards (where did the winding up story come from?) we're seeing the current board as victims of a vendetta, a conspiracy of undermining influences, in the face of which they are striving to save the club. I think this is dishonest and all this agenda and 'proxy for Caisley' nonsense is about discrediting critical voices just when we need them most.