Not forgetting this nugget from the T&A thread...

You really are an utter tit. It takes some doing for a poster to be so utterly devoid of even a sliver of merit as to be dumped in my dustbin, so congratulations and welcome to the no. 3 slot.

Isn't interesting that when certain people tell other certain people things they don'want to stand behind in public but wish to be placed on this message board it is presented as the self evident truth, and not a highy dubious, thoroughly well spun version of events.

Yet when other certain people like Lockwood, and other posters on here are told things they are 'liars', 'incompetents', in 'breach of confidentiality and non disclosure agreements'. There views are 'anti-Hood propaganda'. Quite why Danny Lockwood is a pro-Caisley, anti- Hood propagandist is anyone's guess but never mind, as apparently he's joined the likes of the T and A and Gerry Sutcliffe in a conspiracy against Peter Hood.

maybe the wrong thread but just wanted to say on the playing field bradford are looking good, you have hit some good form, hope all goes well for the future

MB: you nailed your colours to the mast a bit ago, once you decided to back Caisley, not administration as you had been doing in preference to either - despite it merely exchanging one disgruntled minority with another, and not solving the problem you had rightly complained about for ages. I would therefore fully expect you to say that - you are entitled to hold strongly partisan views and express them, if it is your wish; the same way as the rest of us are, and will.

One little difference though between the contrasting examples you quoted: Lockwood made his comments in an editorial in a widely-read (in the game) publication. Sutcliffe's comments were widely reported in a major regional newspaper, and were picked up elsewhere in the published media. Bit of a difference, particularly in the likely impact, compared with individuals posting comments on internet message forums?

I don't remember overtly backing Caisley, or nailing any colours to any mast. I've pledged, paid and believe this board limping along to be the worst option. I believe the blatant smearing of Caisley since his leaving to have been both negative and damaging and conducted in part to deflect attention from a board who have failed to remedy any of the problems they have incessantly blamed him for.

I've argued for administration as under this board I'm convinced it is a)inevitable and b) the only way of ridding the club of both Hood and Caisley. You and other have argued vehemently that this was not the right option for a number of valid reasons. In light of this and the Bullbuilder statement to hold the board (whichever it is ) to account I have stated I would accept Caisley plus new investment as the least worst option. I do not have strong partisan views. Personally, I would take the gamble and go for administartion as I beleive the situation we have now is as bad as a protracted administration. Elima, Nas, Crookes are all OOC and cannot be expected to wait until Ryan Duckett finishes his 'confidential conversations' or Caisley conducts his review, whatever that might be. Hood is dragging his feet over the EGM and we are in complete stasis.

There are two options, administration and Caisley (which may also be adminitration). The sooner we get to one or the other the better. If we get to June/July with no budget/salary cap set for 2013 it will be a total and utter disaster. If Hood has the interest of the club at heart he must resign as this is inevitable anyway. Our main enemy now is delay. The utterly simplistic defence of the current board and the slagging of Caisley is just silly and gets us nowhere.

I might be wrong (I suppose one day it is bound to happen) but I don't actually recall [ianyone[/i "defending" the board. And whether they stay or go, and whether we sink or float, the morass the club finds itself in is pretty indefensible.

I am getting even more pis5ed off and worried in equal measure than before at the total lack of any meaningful communication since the 500K was announced, but I never pledged believing that if only the total was reached, magic would happen, I (and I think most) did so as their perceived way of keeping our club from immediately going under.

OK, thanks for reasoned reply - I've a better and more clear understanding of your position from that. Thank you.

I don't think there are too many blindly defending the current board - I certainly don't, and e.g. have made my feelings about the PR battle and in other ways pretty clear. And a return to the status quo ante is anyway unlikely to happen now so many Rubicons have been crossed, I suggest? But I also can't thank Mr Caisley for what to me have been deliberately-timed interventions that could have precipated failure and administration (and still could). I certainly don't think his public attacks, nor those of opportunistic politicians and out-of-work actors, have made the BoD's job of trying to save the business and secure external financing any easier. And I think his (IMO) disingenuous avoiding of his own role in why we are where we are is just downright dishonest. But that is my opinion.

My own stance has consistently been lets save the ship first, then decide who caused it to founder and who is best to captain it going forward. My view of the risks of administration have been consistently different to yours - and who knows which of us is right? - hence my emphasis on supporting the current incumbents to sort the mess out in the first instance, as opposed to administration taking the matter out of their hands. If Caisley would put something concrete on the table that demonstrated a commitment to avoid administration at all costs, then in the interests of the club you would have to set the past aside and consider that seriously. But thus far he has not, so there remains only one announced game in town to try and avoid almost immediate administration.

I think the attacks on Caisley have been brought on by a lot of people feeling he has sought to take advantage of and seriously exacerbate the situation, for his own ends ahead of those of the club. Again, my opinion. You could see this pretty clearly in the majority of the posts on the normally very negative T&A comments threads. Certainly his activity, and that of others who seem to share his stance, have brought about the strong reaction you have seen from me. Not in defence of the present board per se, but to counter what in my opinion was serious injustice being done. Folk who know me know that it is injustice, more than anything else, that really upsets me.

I very much share your concern though that delay is our worst enemy now, regardless. I believe the BoD are working like mad behind the scenes to fix the problem, however it arose and whoever is to blame, and despite the major external distractions. I continue to hope that we will see an outcome soon, and a better one than would have resulted from immediate administration. Time will tell, of course. The pledges etc bought some time and are buying time; what I think we all agree on is that it can't go on too long before we must have a resolution, one way or another.

It's an utter nightmare and no mistake but for what's it's worth I think the EGM should have been held this week. Whether intentional or not it must be impossible to find investment in the two weeks before an EGM to oust the board. I think Ryan is kite flying personally. CC and co will say they haven't found investment in six years so what's new but what's he offering?

I think this is very poor from both sides. Caisley has brought nothing to the table so far and Hood is a dead man walking. FA mentions the lack of communication and of course he's right but I think they haven't anything to tell us. We could very easily end up with the negative consequences of admin (losing players) and none of the positive (new shareholding) to invest and take us forward.

Apart from kite flying which I think is unfair, I wouldn't argue with any of that.

TBH I dont think there'd be too much wrong with him kite flying. We might need an impressive kite.

Is there any positive outcomes of Admin?

Please don't state removal of debts - that is morally repugnant, especially after the efforts over the last few weeks

It would sort out our ridiculous share structure.

According to Bennett we do not have any debts, just the recurring ones.

Indeed but so would a buyout without any of the associated risks. Anyone a shareholder? I would willing buy a share off you to attend this EGM if I'm not too late