My understanding - I was told this, so it is only as good as what I was told - is that Caisley was given "the figures" - financial information, anyway - before the Intervention. As a principal shareholder, he had every right to request such information, so I feel sure he would have exercised that right before making his move? I certainly would have, in his position. Whether any figures he was given were complete, accurate or timely I would not know.

But you really should not NEED two months to "go through the figures". Speaking as one who has done precisely this kind of thing, provided you have a half-decent accounting system you need at best two weeks to get the gist of it, with a business on this scale. And at times in the past I have had little more trhan about two (long, hard) DAYS. And most of THAT is usually validating the numbers you have been given rather than doing stuff from first principles.

I simply cannot understand why there was so long between the Eviction and the appointment of administrators. What were they actually doing over the intervening period? Just how long does it take to "carry out a review"? I heard that no-one was seen at Odsal from the New Board (apart from matchday) or their advisors or the people Caisley said would be helping him with the Review, so what exactly was going on over that period? I am sure they must have been very busy though, given the protracted period? That is just as big a question that needs answering, though, as the question of where the balance of the Odsal lease sale money went, I suggest?

At the time of the Eviction, I believe -from my reading of what has been put in the public domain - that there can have been no tax that had not been paid by its agreed payment date. Subsequent to the Eviction, we had the May payroll paid, which generated the (approx £90k?) PAYE due Friday 22 June. Administrators were appointed Tuesday morning Tuesday 26 June, so it would be reasonable to deduce cause and effect there, although I never seen HMRC act so quickly post-default? That said, from what I have read there was a £50k VAT instalment due end of May, and I presume a c.£7k image rights tax payment too since I was told that was payable monthly. Maybe the new board did not meet THOSE payments? Either way, if (as we were told) the Appointment was to seek protection from an HMRC winding-up petition, why did the new board leave it so long, clock up additional PAYE liabilities and perhaps renage on the previously-agreed payment schedules? Surely when Caisley Intervened, and brought about the Eviction, he must have had been aware that these liabilities would need to be paid? And if the new board was unable to pay the end-May instalment payments, why would they go ahead and pay the June payroll? Sure has me confused, but them I am cautious by nature and maybe they had more hopes of a favourable outcome?

The delay therefore does seem to have led to a subsequent tax default, when there was semingly no default at the date of the Eviction, but surely that cannot have been the intention? Who would have any reason to drag it out like that if they were seeking to do the best for the club? And risk personal liability for Trading whilst Insolvent, having been unable to pay over HMRC the PAYE you deducted from employees on a payroll you (not the previous board) had paid? Just does not make sense does it, any of it? And so I am mightily confused by it all. I'm sure that that post-Eviction period must figure in the Administrator's report to the DTI same way as the pre-Eviction period rightly will, just a shame none of us will see it since we might get some answers to the whole saga.

Here is something from what I posted elsewhere, though, that explains how I feel about the Intervention:

My issue with Mr Caisley over all this is quite simple: once Mr Agar had changed sides and he spoke for more than half the shareholding, why did he not say to Mr Hood - in private - "Peter, its like this old son. One of two things is now going to happen: either you appoint several of us to the board - now - so we have a majority round the boardroom table; or we require you to convene an EGM which will so do. Then, as an enlarged board, one of two further things is going to happen: either we work together to solve this unholy mess that on your watch we seem to be faced with, or we will sack you and WE will seek to sort it by ourselves. Which is it to be? And, once we have saved the club - if it CAN be saved, THEN we'll hold the inquiry, and in all probability you will find it necesary to resign. But at least you can say that we collectively solved the problem, you can step down with your self-respect, and - MOST IMPORTANTLY - the outside world, and especially potential investors, will see a united, strong board determined to work together to solve the problem. That would surely present the best possible case to such investors?"

I am not aware that such a discussion took place. But even if it DID, and was rejected, surely then Mr Caisley should have quietly convened the EGM, with the resolution to reappoint him, Messrs Agar and Coulby, and ANO (maybe the respected Gary Tasker) to the board? And then, once appointed, sack those of whom he disapproved?

Instead, he chose to very publically denounce Messrs Hood and Bennett and call for them to stand down, at what could hardly have been a more sensitive time, surely you would agree? A time when his action must have placed Mr. Hood in an impossible position, damned if he did and damned if he did not? Over calling in the pledges, over standing down as Mr Caisley demanded - and remember that letter Mr Caisley had seemingly written to Mr Hood (released into the public domain I asumed by Mr Bennett?), which I suggest to the recipient would read as pretty threatening?

And how could Mr Hood be in any way motivated to build on the incredible response from the fans and the wider RL community to our plight knowing that he would be removed very shortly? What possible authority could he carry with anyone as a lame duck Chairman waiting for the axe? They knew they were going to be removed at the EGM. What surprised me is that they hung on as long as they did. Maybe they remained hopeful of securing investment despite all the impediments, who knows?

And who would seek to invest in a club where its largest shareholder had stated so publically it was a house seriously divided?

I could not possibly support Mr Caisley after that, because it seemed to me that his actions were inconsistent with seeking to secure the best (or least-bad) outcome for the club. And it seems to me that it can be little surprise that the conspiracy theorists went to town over all this. After all, Mr Caisley's actions, however they may have been intended, surely gave them ample ammunition?

Your second statement is why I find it hard to answer your first.

The extent of my communication with Caisley has been a solitary email around 2001 where he gave me grief for something I posted on the old, official Bulls forum. I know you've mentioned in the past that you've met him and found him to be brash and abrasive. As such, I'd bow down to your greater knowledge of the guy, his motives and his personality, not to mention a far greater understanding of the inner workings of business and the boardroom (I've just sent my first set of accounts to HMRC - that was one seriously harrowing experience!) yet inspite of this I find it hard to believe that a person can spend 10 years in office throughout the clubs most successful period and then throw all that away in a ing contest with another board member.

I know the guy was hard to work with, could be pig headed and maybe wasn't the most astute business person Bradford will ever see, but like players I sometimes think we forget that administrators (as in people who would typically run the club and not those who may be about to liquidate it) are humans and not just names on a team sheet or year end report. There's no doubt in my mind that Chris (so named to drive home the point) would have sat down with his peers (probably his friends and family) and made a decision that was best for all the above and hopefully the club. If it turns out that he made the wrong call that should, IMO, be considered separately to his motives.

Cant say I've ever liked the bloke and the Harris signing was undoubtedy a calamity. But he does deserve credit for Bullmania and the success it brought.

Those of us that were there will remember him walking out with the Bulls flag at the Don Valley and being cheered to the rafters.

He's the Bradford Macbeth.

I think it's likely you're right that administration was going to happen but the difference between an administration where Caisley thought he'd have control of the outcome and the unholy mess we've got now is the bit I think he didn't expect.
All the major shareholders and board members have been complicit in allowing this to happen, either by their action or inaction, and none of them should ever come anywhere near the club again.

Let's all concentrate on what we are going to do in the immediate future to try and save the club rather than reliving the past . All the mistakes made, who made them and how much of our current predicament was caused by any particular decision is interesting but does not help secure a future for league in Bradford.