Here's a suggestion - don't know if it is feasible or not.

Board issue more shares and offer them to new investors - this will get much need cash into the club, reduce existing shareholders percentage (less power) and have the option to give Bullbuilder an amount of shares.

Just a thought. . . .

Non-starter, unfortunately.

The Articles of Association (constitution/rules) empower the directors to issue new shares, and there seem to be no pre-emption rights in favour of existing shareholders (which is perhaps unusual).

BUT there are virtually no shares left to be issued within the £200,000 Authorised Share Capital.

And yes, the Companies Act 2006 eliminated the requirement for a company to have an Authorised Share Capital, but where a company already HAD one then that provision becomes part of the Articles of Association.

For the directors to issue new shares, they would first have to have that provision in the Articles of Association deleted or amended.

And THAT requires a Special Resolution (75% majority) passed by the shareholders.

Now can anybody start to see why we'd never get past that stage...?

and to summarise Aidy's post = its not possible

Was Caisley ousted in a boardroom coup?

The reason I ask is that I keep reading lots of references to him bailing out and leaving the club up a creek without a paddle etc but is this what actually happened?

A certain person very close to the club has told everyone in the Bradford region that CC has been waiting until the club went belly up to regain control which only adds up if he was forced out in the first place. Otherwise he'd have stayed I guess.

Don't recall him being "ousted". From memory he stood down after the end of the 2005 season, with a few parting shots at the fans with their lack of support in numbers for the club. He said as much in one of the final accounts he was responsible for signing off as chairman.

Peter Hood took "temporary" charge stating he would look for outside investment and step aside once that arrived.

Hood then took charge officially and the rest as they say is history.

The rumour you state is a well heard one around these parts isn't it. How much truth there is in it remains to be seen....

A bit of Caisleyology from the archives: Oct 2011: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... t/?ref=rss www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y/?ref=rss March 2010: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss T&A archives only go back to 2009. I have an old database from when the RLFANS news aggegator was still running kicking around somewhere, I'm sure I still had it going in 2006. I'll see what else I can dig out.

A bit of Caisleyology from the archives: Oct 2011: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... t/?ref=rss www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y/?ref=rss March 2010: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss T&A archives only go back to 2009. I have an old database from when the RLFANS news aggegator was still running kicking around somewhere, I'm sure I still had it going in 2006. I'll see what else I can dig out.

That is pretty much as I remember it. It was at the same time as the club was cutting the high earners from the wage bill and and selling who and what they could. Nobby left for Wigan closely followed by Stu Fielden and many others. The impression, and indeed statements from the club seemed to confirm, that the club had been run into the ground and was in imminent danger of going bust. I don't think there was any boardroom uprising to claim what was clearly a poisoned chalice.

OK, he leaves of his own accord with the club in imminent financial trouble. How does the 'vendetta' story hold water then? I'm not asking you specifically, just trying to work out the narratives that are constantly being spun here.

I'm with MB here in that I'm confused by some of the opinions of Caisley being expressed on here. I have absolutely no idea of what went on behind the scenes when he left the club (and , I guess, neither have most people). However, some insist that he is responsible for the club's plight because we "lost" the Harris court battle, even though in fact the case was never heard. We ended up paying Leeds the compo because we folded, no doubt for reasons of prudence, but we folded nevertheless. Caisley did not sell the Burgess brothers to Souths, the current BOD did, no doubt for a significant wad of cash.

I've never met Caisley, or any of the directors, and so have no axe to grind about any of them. But to paint Caisley as the devil in all this seems to me to be just plain silly.

You seem to be incorrectly informed the case was taken to court but the amount was not made public. See the verdict here [urlhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.html[/url as it was ruled not a restraint of trade we had no choice but to negotiate.

That was the very first hearing. There was never no hearing concerning the £3.2m Leeds were seeking in compensation that was settled out of court.