Totally agree, to be honest Caisley is just like many bullies I know, if they don't get what they want they throw a strop and not everything they say is fact.

There's no doubt that the club started the decline under CC's stewardship and, as such, even if he only had the one vote on the board, he is responsible for much of the predicament the club found itself in when he left.



I don't believe he is the devil incarnate though; he was misguided and some awful decisions were made under his leadership, not least the winding down of the junior set up, Harrisgate and the unsustainable spending which went on at the time. Though, and not for the first time, I'll hold my hand up and accept that I was one of those cheering from the rafters every time his unaffordable teams won a trophy.



We do have to accept where we are though, and Chris is our largest shareholder, so no matter what people's views might be he [iwill[/i be a part of the endgame in some capacity. My biggest hope is that he will have a positive role to play.

fully agree Bulliac. I think Caisleys problem is that his heart rules his head when it comes to the good old days. yes he did a good job, that job was to grasp a one-off opportunity with both hands - the creation of superleague - and to get a sugar daddy - the council - to give us £4.6m to play at Odsal. and the competition were slow off the mark, I remember passing a load of Leeds fans on Rooley Lane after we had beaten them for the 4th time and saying your time will come, well it did, and how many floating fans moved with their tide of success? So the good old days will not return in the same way. Hood on the other hand has had to face two big issues: a global financial collapse and subsequent recession and Harrisgate (plus a whinging Aussie half back that f@cked up the first pledge season). If your back is to the wall you have a lot less room to move, and theres been no fat on the bulls back to absorb any unexpected problems. IMO he has done well with what he has got.



However, the ideal situation is Caisley Hood and the fans all working together.

Well Caisley pledging and paying 2 million quid would go a long way

And then, for next week's edition of "Its dead easy once you know how", we will be bringing you "how to get matter and antimatter to co-exist without mutual annihilation?".

I'd have thought ideal situation would be for BOTH caisley and hood to sell their shares to a third party and walk away, giving us a new majority shareholder that fans can trust. As it is think both have too much baggage to be chairman going forward.

Good idea, but it doesn't seem as if there a queue of people looking to do that

Neither would sell to the same person. They hate each other more than they care about the club.

100% agree with that, I'm just a bit doubtful about it happening

If there's a next time around we should start our own fund and pay for a hit man. We could get someone killed for way less than 500k.



edit: I'm not advocating killing people here. Incapacitation would be fine.

Here's a suggestion - don't know if it is feasible or not.



Board issue more shares and offer them to new investors - this will get much need cash into the club, reduce existing shareholders percentage (less power) and have the option to give Bullbuilder an amount of shares.



Just a thought. . . .

Non-starter, unfortunately.



The Articles of Association (constitution/rules) empower the directors to issue new shares, and there seem to be no pre-emption rights in favour of existing shareholders (which is perhaps unusual).



BUT there are virtually no shares left to be issued within the £200,000 Authorised Share Capital.



And yes, the Companies Act 2006 eliminated the requirement for a company to have an Authorised Share Capital, but where a company already HAD one then that provision becomes part of the Articles of Association.



For the directors to issue new shares, they would first have to have that provision in the Articles of Association deleted or amended.



And THAT requires a Special Resolution (75% majority) passed by the shareholders.



Now can anybody start to see why we'd never get past that stage...?

and to summarise Aidy's post = its not possible

Was Caisley ousted in a boardroom coup?



The reason I ask is that I keep reading lots of references to him bailing out and leaving the club up a creek without a paddle etc but is this what actually happened?



A certain person very close to the club has told everyone in the Bradford region that CC has been waiting until the club went belly up to regain control which only adds up if he was forced out in the first place. Otherwise he'd have stayed I guess.

Don't recall him being "ousted". From memory he stood down after the end of the 2005 season, with a few parting shots at the fans with their lack of support in numbers for the club. He said as much in one of the final accounts he was responsible for signing off as chairman.



Peter Hood took "temporary" charge stating he would look for outside investment and step aside once that arrived.



Hood then took charge officially and the rest as they say is history.



The rumour you state is a well heard one around these parts isn't it. How much truth there is in it remains to be seen....

A bit of Caisleyology from the archives: Oct 2011: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... t/?ref=rss www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y/?ref=rss March 2010: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss T&A archives only go back to 2009. I have an old database from when the RLFANS news aggegator was still running kicking around somewhere, I'm sure I still had it going in 2006. I'll see what else I can dig out.

A bit of Caisleyology from the archives: Oct 2011: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... t/?ref=rss www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y/?ref=rss March 2010: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss T&A archives only go back to 2009. I have an old database from when the RLFANS news aggegator was still running kicking around somewhere, I'm sure I still had it going in 2006. I'll see what else I can dig out.

That is pretty much as I remember it. It was at the same time as the club was cutting the high earners from the wage bill and and selling who and what they could. Nobby left for Wigan closely followed by Stu Fielden and many others. The impression, and indeed statements from the club seemed to confirm, that the club had been run into the ground and was in imminent danger of going bust. I don't think there was any boardroom uprising to claim what was clearly a poisoned chalice.

OK, he leaves of his own accord with the club in imminent financial trouble. How does the 'vendetta' story hold water then? I'm not asking you specifically, just trying to work out the narratives that are constantly being spun here.

I'm with MB here in that I'm confused by some of the opinions of Caisley being expressed on here. I have absolutely no idea of what went on behind the scenes when he left the club (and , I guess, neither have most people). However, some insist that he is responsible for the club's plight because we "lost" the Harris court battle, even though in fact the case was never heard. We ended up paying Leeds the compo because we folded, no doubt for reasons of prudence, but we folded nevertheless. Caisley did not sell the Burgess brothers to Souths, the current BOD did, no doubt for a significant wad of cash.



I've never met Caisley, or any of the directors, and so have no axe to grind about any of them. But to paint Caisley as the devil in all this seems to me to be just plain silly.

You seem to be incorrectly informed the case was taken to court but the amount was not made public. See the verdict here [urlhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.html[/url as it was ruled not a restraint of trade we had no choice but to negotiate.

That was the very first hearing. There was never no hearing concerning the £3.2m Leeds were seeking in compensation that was settled out of court.

That was a hearing to decide a preliminary issue. That was brought about by the Bulls alleging the Harris/Leeds contract was a restraint of trade. The Bulls lost that issue and the claim continued. The Bulls were disputing they had induced Harris to breach his contract which was the real substance of the case.



It stagnated for a while whilst another case on Inducement to Breach was determined by the House of Lords. When that case was determined Ferocious Aardvark and I disagreed about what the outcome of that case meant for the Leeds Bulls case* which remained stagnant for some time after that.



Eventually there was a settlement. The terms of that settlement were confidential but we know the Bulls made payment to Leeds by three instalments over three years as it's recorded in both companies set of accounts. Therefore, Glory Hunter is correct that the Bulls never lost the case because the case wasn't determined.



*I don't wish to imply that the representatives for Leeds, Bradford and Harris awaited the outcome of the discussions between FA and I on here before moving on with the case, but maybe they should've.

Is it??? The only thing I can remember seeing in either company is only tangential, which was Leeds having a curious trade debtor of £350k due for receipt after more than one year in the 2008 accounts; but there is no evidence that relates to the matter at hand, not least as it doesn't agree to anything showing, in reverse, in the Bulls' accounts.



The Bulls, in fact, never disclosed anything of any use as far as I could see although reference was made to the existence and, later, the settlement of the case. One could and did wonder whether it should have been better disclosed as an exceptional item (Companies Act should trump confidentiality clauses when it comes to accounting disclosures) but presumably it was somehow agreed the figure was not material.

Why is a secret?

And - any of the lawyers on here, could the Bulls have actually won the case, had they not caved in?