Quote: M@islebugs "Broadly agree with the sentiments but I think the last few weeks have shown there is little if any chance of this happening with the current shareholding as it is.
We can argue forever on the nuts and bolts but I've argued for years that the key problem could only be solved by administration. I disagree the ball is in the court of the new board as we can see an effective message board campaign has been mounted to undermine them. Personnally, whether justified or not, I think CC is simply too divisive a figure to take us forward. People really seem to hate him and there's just too much history I'm afraid.
I paid my pledge out of emotion but feel in retrospect it was the worst thing we could have done. Had we entered administrtaion in April we could have been shut of Caisley, Hood and the rest. I think the club would have been bought out of admin. We'd have lost points but those saying we'd lose our franchise are talking nonsense. The RFL have secretly lent the club money and bought a lease they probably didn't want to keep us alive.
We have ended up in the worst of all worlds.'"
I think you're correct to say CC is a 'divisive' figure and I've posted with the odd complaint of my own, though I would hate to be thought part of any, 'campaign to undermine', anyone who is trying to save the club. In those terms it sounds like an organised campaign with leaders and an agenda, which I don't think exists to be honest. I think any major change is going to bring out pros and antis and that is what we are seeing, but it is just individuals voicing concern.
The important fact though, is that Chris, and his group, effectively run the show, it is a fait accompli, and as a supporter I want him, and them, to do what is best for the club. Ultimately we all support the club, the team on the field, not the people in the boardroom, and when, or indeed if, things get back to something approaching normality 99.99% of fans won't give two hoots who is chairman, or on the board imo.
For what it's worth, I'm sure you're right about admin sorting out the shareholding problem, my problem with it is that I've always complained about clubs 'going the admin route' just to evade debts and taxes etc. It's unfair on everyone from local businesses who are owed money and to the taxman (who represents US) and just because it's [imy club[/i doesn't make it right imo. If a club is totally up the creek, with no chance of carrying on, well Ok, things have to be sorted one way or another but as a smart Alec business tactic it's wrong, wrong, wrong. But that is just my opinion and it matters not one jot, in the great scheme of things.