If correct this is a disgrace and perhaps explains my post on another thread.

No Official source that i can name but a few of the texts have been true before.

We all knew it was coming.

We just need the lads like Bateman, Obrien, Whitehead, Donaldson not to sign if they are sold. Administrators can only sell players if they are willing to sign for another club.

I still can't see how this can help with cash flow.
All I can think is that CC has investors lined up, but unwilling to commit with the ridiculous share structure we have now.
If true, let's just hope it's some kind of pre-pack or whatever, the RFL agree to switch the lease over to the newco, and everyone is promptly re-signed before the vultures begin to circle.

Clutching at straws with most of the above, I know.

Who could such other creditors be?

That is if we were lied to when we were told at various times and by different people that the club was now debt free.

I can't see there would be any other significant creditors because I can't see anyone would lend to the club!

Is this true or a load of coz it's got my blood boiling

Should be obvious from the above that nobody has a clue.

Caisley + Coulby quoted 'finances worse than thought, losses month on month etc'!

Bennett + Hood + Incredibullman (who has access to Hood's private correspondence) quoted 'finances in good shape, debt free, 200k in bank'.

They can't both be right can they? One, or perhaps both of these groups are outright liars as they are incompatable positions.

What texts have been true before? Are these the same sources that said Thomas Cook were gonna be shirt sponsors?

Might be true, might not. Like all internet rumours caveat emptor applies...in spades.

Given that most of what each camp has been quoted as saying is subjective and lacking in substance, I suggest it is fair to say that each camp is selectively spinning. I gather that the "finances worse than first thought" comment was strongly disputed from within the club. People, especially I feel the new lot, have been playing very much to the public gallery. Just look at how many people believed CC had promised new investment when he said no such thing? Or how many people believed tax bills had mysteriously appeared out of the blue?

How do you know the leaker is not someone who has been given the letter from within the Caisley camp?

I can only assume by 'playing to the public gallery' you mean that Coulby has made public statements which could be challenged in a similar manner rather than your preferred method of communication which appears involve unnamed persons telling you in private.

You know the leaker isn't from the Caisley camp so I'm unsure why you'd suggest it a possibility.