Direct quote from todays T&A Quote: "It is understood the Bulls’ financial position is considerably worse than was originally thought. '" www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ord_Bulls/ Rather worrying

Direct quote from todays T&A Quote: "It is understood the Bulls’ financial position is considerably worse than was originally thought. '" www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ord_Bulls/ Rather worrying

Or alternatively, "they would say that, wouldn't they?"

Expect more "it is understood that..." comment to pave the way, as Mat says.

I think you all know what I expect the outcome of this review to be, and that I suspect it was pre-ordained. But I live in hope that I am wrong.

We need to wait till the review is over before we all start cutting into veins, however, if this report in the T&A has any substance it is worrying news indeed.

So our £500k been taken under false pretences then? So not only, no investment lined up, also far deeper in the sh11te then previously told.

Apart from the fact that administration has been inevitable for a minimum of 3 years.

I would go further and say "They have to say that" I would have been shocked if they hadn't.

There is no way the new people would have said - "Actually we are in better shape than thought" as that would imply the previous board were dealing with the problem and would cast doubt on the [imoral[/i legitimacy of the new guys.

This way they imply that the old board were worse than the public know and they therefore have legal & moral authority to make the decision which we all expect and can blame it on the old board.

The only odd thing is the new guys are currently getting their info from Ryan. Their previous info was either through the media (which is suspect at the best of times) or [ifrom Ryan[/i.

If our problems all lie in cash flow then how will administration help?
Or are they trying to claim that Hood has failed to disclose additional creditors, in which case the last set of financial statements would be deliberately mis-stated wouldn't they?

Maybe true. And doing it now when we could potentially make up the 6pt deduction and still make playoffs is maybe a better option than going into next yr with a pts deduction. There are good arguments in favor of admin in terms of sorting shares longterm.
But it seems obvious, while new board are making right noises about avoiding admin, it's in their interests to go into admin. The review IMO is mainly a PR exercise with a pre-determined outcome and as part of it they will put as much blame on previous board as possible. Don't blame new board on a sense as it's best to start with as clean a slate as possible.

Anyone else want to go knock on Hoods door and ask for their money back?

Anyone daft enough to give him money deserves to lose it.

You will never know if it was, because the previous board are no longer in situ, are no longer in a position to demonstrate whether or notthey told the fans the truth, and were never going to be able to do so once Caisley intervened to effectively stymie any inward investment - by making public the the shareholder disagreement the day before the pledge closed.

If the current board DOES "conclude" that administration is the "only option", you will never know what the true financial position was. Because all you will ever see or see quoted from - if you are lucky - will be the Statement of Affairs. Whcih is drawn up on a Realisation as opposed to a Going Concern basis. Which means it shows loads of liabilities that crystalise only on insolvency, and assets written down to their realisable amount. And therefore shows a far far worse financial position than a set of accounts does. Because it is not showing the same information.

And yet, just you watch. If it IS administration, I bet you will see people quoting numbers from the SOA to "prove" how bad the financial situation was. WHich will be total and utter bollox, and if they do I will shout it from the rooftoops. Since an SOA shows the position AFTER a business has been declared formally insolvent, so it is BOUND to look far worse. I sincerely hope, if administration DOES come to pass, that the new board, or Caisley, or anyone else involved in the process, tries to take the fans for fools with disingenuous statements. If they try, I'll be watching.

Incidentally, I felt sure, from talking to all of them, that the previous board were aware of their responsibilities regarding Trading whilst Insolvent - and the personal liability that such action can bring. And therefore I concluded that they would surely not call the pledge in unless they had realistic expectations that the business would not be insolvent afterwards, since for them to do otherwise would be reckless in the extreme, and perhaps render them exposed to actions against them personally. That is why I made my pledge straight after that discussion. But Caisley's intervention seems to have ensured that we will never now know the truth of it -since the previous board could use the (probably almost almost irrefutable) defence that they genuinely believed the pledge would secure further investment, but the intervention understandably frightened the prospective investors off.

Lets see you say that to the faces of the large number of people who did, rather than sat behind the safety of your keyboard? You really are one thoroughly objectionable piece of work.

Adey, think you just gave him the answer he wanted....

The board needs people like ME to make it interesting, but comments like the one he posted there just show what sort of person he is.

People gave money to save the club, now for whatever reason we seem to be heading towards administration, even though as FA has posted several times there seems little reason for us to do so, given that we have just forked out £500k to all and sundry to pay off existing debts leaving only the current bills to find the cash to pay.

We still seem to be acting on hearsay, but if the CC review does provide details of further financial black holes from the Hood era, then I think we would all be interested in understanding why these were not seen as a problem by Hood and what the CC review plans to do.

Agree on the SOA and am I right in thinking they can project contracts they are obliged to honour as liabilities going forward. I also agree with the poster who refers to the role of Ryan Duckett in all of this. Surely, he can't be surprised by the financial position having been CEO.

On the last point, with the best will in the world I really can't see how you can make a case for the liklihood of PH almost securing investment only to be hijacked by the comments of CC. The loan from the RFL and the sale of the lease look like utterly desperate measures and the very fact that he was forced into a humiliating statement as regards the club almost going under surely underlines his inability to secure any serious support over the previous period. Asking for investment in the same statement you announce the club is a few weeks from having a chain put on the gate says the game was long up.

On the other hand if you, I or anyone else who owned 26% of a business and heard the Chair and CEO announce what they did, then I think you would have to act. I don't see what else could have happened.

FWIW I'm surer than ever that Hood should have taken the club into admin before the settlement of the Harris deal siting the alleged £3.2million liability.