The club is a relatively small business with a minimal number of creditors. Any due dilligence which actively involves the present CEO, however limited his role was under the last BOD, should have been completed now.

Cash flow forecasting for a business this size again should not take any reasonable Accountant more than a week to compete. Revenue is fairly easily ascertained.

The old new Board have experience of the club and very recently as well so this is not new to them either.

So what is the delay????

On 3rd May 2012 Stephen Coulby said the following,

"he and his fellow shareholders are determined to avoid taking the club into administration"

I can only assume you're suggesting he's brazenly lying. Is there an incident in his 50 odd year association with the club to lead one to this conclusion?

Just to caution - we haven't seen the response to Caisley's letter which states that Hood agreed the finances were worse than thought, with losses month on month. This is the opposite of what Incredibullman now claims and therefore one would expect Hood to have corrected CC's assertion in writing. I think we have to assume that were there a response refuting this then the poster would have access to it.

Secondly, Coulby also makes the precise same claim in the T and A almost a month ago (along with some other gems) which have also recieved no response.

And, set against that, our resident forum lawyer explained the other day - in response to my suggestion that failure to respond could weaken his case - why he would not have expected (and presumably not have advised) Hood to respond.

I also sounded out another legal eagle, who said that in such a situation a public response and ensuing argument was frequently what the antagonist was seeking to induce. His advice in such cases was always to ignore the provocation and leave it to the court or arbitrator to decide, and never engage in a defence through the media unless you were a pro at it.

So that left me still none the wiser as to how to interpret the lack of response.

Then why didn't he keep Caisley's letter private?

Incredibullman hasn't come to the conclusion that CC planned administration all along by enigma. Someone significant (probably the same person gave him/her the letter) has told them.

There is always the possibility that IBM was close enough to the action to be aware for himself what was going on?

In what role?

He/She has a copy of private correspondence between two people. it follows that Incredibullman is either Peter Hood or Chris Caisley or they've been given the letter by either Peter Hood or Chris Caisley.

Assuming the letter is genuine, then unless there was an intermediate party involved the argument is irrefutable.

Or picked it up from the photocopier........accessed someone's computer......found it at the bottom of a pile of papers.....

Am I confused? Is the implication here that even though the letter clearly state that he doesn't want the club in administration, people still think that CC is somehow still plotting it all along, and the letter is part of an elaborate double bluff?

How does that work then?

It's how some have chosen to roll around these 'ere parts lately; primarily to mitigate their failing, misguided beliefs and also because they have been sold an absolute stinker of a sob story by the previous BoD. That they are unable to see the notion you outline is actually farcical, and essentially impractical, is indicative of their mis-comprehension as to the whole situation, and indeed that their "intelligence-led" approach is somewhat ironic.

Also duly noted Mr Hoods very appearance on these forums as a relatively new poster (another pseudonym to align with his strategically placed stooges).

I shall make little comment on the letter, other than to reiterate the bloody obvious; only somebody who would benefit in a public perception led environment would benefit from its very presence. Wouldn't they PH?