You wrote to Peter Hood to tell him how much a bad job he was doing

Do you think he gave your advice credence or do you think he took your letter and binned it?



Surely you would of been better writing to the Shareholding if thats how passionately you felt - Hood was never going to sack himself was he......

Never said you did belittle anyone, I stated another poster

Tinkering will not be enough to sustain the viability of this lame duck. Cut the crap and let's have some serious investment from those reputed to care.As previously said,this is terrible PR for SL and the Bulls.As for CC,absolutely disgusting and deplorable that we still await some explanation as to the progress of his intent or otherwise ,of his involvement.ALL parties should remember the massive effort of fans,players and Clubs to raise the original £500,000 and consequentially, have obligations to show expediency and communicate with the supporters (Part of the Family which is the RFL).

Sam might need to speak to Duffy - he's the welfare officer at the club (State of Mind). Oh, wait..

You've actually been talking some sense lately. Been ill?

Two points
1, I don't have an inside track. I saw everything that you saw and concluded correctly. However, one group of people did have an inside track. The RFL audited the club as part of its SL license and then Peter Hood came and asked them for 700k (presuming the RFL didn't make an unsolicited offer). This should have given them grounds for seeking further information/input. Surely you must see this as a serious failing or at least a point in this story where something 'different' might have happened.

2, There were alternatives. Martyn Sadler knew of at least three consortium who were interested in buying the Bulls who (according to Guilfoyle) withdrew when they saw the books.
Your points about the nature of 'conditions' in these negotiations are well made but both parties are still using the term 'condition' with the regards to the purchase/sale of the lease.

The points stands, had their been intervention sooner when the RFL had grounds there is a reasonable chance the situation could have been brought to light sooner and the scale of the disaster would almost certainly not be as great as it now is

Well he certainly didn't act on it or we wouldn't be where we are now.

Brilliant

Are you 100% sure of that? Are you saying that Caisley or AN Other would have sailed the good ship Bulls better through this fiscally turbulent sea?

T'either way - who cares, history is just that, history, its shaping the future that is important in the present, thats if the Bulls have a future.

Two points

That much is clear.


Tosh. This "claim" means nothing. I say I "concluded correctly" too. Equally meaningless.


I am no accountant but I do not believe that the RFL carries out any sort of "audit" in the sense you mean. And my problem with this claim is that the answer to your implicit question would be that the RFL knew the Bulls were effectively trading whilst insolvent but loaned them money. I don't buy it.

I don't see any serious failing on the part of the RFL. We know so little about the smallprint of the deals but what little has emerged seems to only indicate a governing body trying to help keep afloat a club with cashflow issues. Not for the first time, not for the last.

Of course "something different" might have happened. The RFL might have refused to do anything and the club might have gone rapidly down the pan, for one thing. Would you have been happy then?


That is a contradiction in terms. Someone who is not interested in buying is no sort of "alternative" that I recognise! Anyway, who were these consortia? Were they even worth tuppence? Or just pie-in-the-sky merchants?

"The books". What "books"? If you mean they saw the size of the debts, then that doesn't wash, as whatever deal they advanced, they buy from the administrator free from debts. So what else do you mean? (Genuine question - if you mean it wasn't being managed properly pre-admin -that would surely be irrelevant to any new purchaser who would surely be putting in their own team)


if they want to continue to cause needless confusion, what can anyone do? Presumably it suits the RFL (who have already pretty much admitted that they don't feel at liberty to give anything like the whole story) to nuttily blame "conditions" rather than have to make decisions and give simple answers to simple questions.


WHAT INTERVENTION though? Who would have intervened? How would they have done it? If there was anyone able to, why did they not do it?

What is the scale of the disaster? Can you give me a link to the figures? All I've seen is two wildly contrasting scenarios advanced via the press through Hood, and Caisley's appointees, seasoned by yet more disinformation from the bank. What was the scale of the disaster then, and how is it worse now? What money have we spent since, that we could have avoided spending?

Bottom line is your view seems to me to be just a bowl of wishful thinking, sprinkled with hindsight. In reality, it was up to the (what we now know to have been) warring factions within the club to bring the situation to a head and they all failed to act. The majority of the blame is on those who were running the club, a very substantial share of the blame is with the others who were not only seemingly washing their hands of it all, but allegedly not even prepared to meet and talk.

And to me, (not that there is now any point to this navel-gazing) therein lies the answer to your claims; at that time the Board and shareholders were hopelessly and irreconcileably divided, poles apart, and seemingly remain so. Given that paralyzing situation, I don't see ANYTHING that could have been done, unless that lot had done it. Between them, they owned the club, and without their agreement, nobody else had any way of getting in.

It does seem fairly mystifying as to what happened to the loan, particularly since it appears we defaulted almost straight away. Clearly the RFL wouldnt have carried out a conventional "audit" but they would surely have carried out some basic checks before advancing the loan. Why had the Bulls reached the stage where they needed such a large sum, far more than could reasonably be put down to normal cashfow fluctuations? What did the club intend to do with the money? How did they propose to raise the money to pay it back? What were the club's short term cashflow projections and how realistic did they seem?.

It would seem that either: 1) the club was effectively bust when the RFL advanced the money; or 2) the club somehow managed to deceive the RFL into making the loan; or 3) the club would have been able to pay back the loan but for some unforseen event(s) occuring immediately after the loan was advanced. If the answer is 3) then it would be reasonable for the club and RFL to explain what happened. If the answer is 1) or 2) then surely the RFL has some serious questions to answer?

Everyone can guess at this regarding the loan, if your mate asks you for a loan you know he is a bit skint but he says he can pay it back, you don't go askig for a full bank statement off him and a list of all his out goings. The Bull were a highly trusted club and these assurances would have been enough. Your mate then says I can't pay you so you can have my car you would say ok.

If you wants to look at guessing what could have happened but didn't how about this.........The RFL and Bradford knew there was a big iceburg coming it's way. The only asset they had that would be sold for peanuts was the stadium. Bradford and the SL knew that you can't just give assets away so they came up with a cunning plan, let's pretend there was an outstanding debt so we can give it to you to hold and when we are out of admin we still have a home!! While we get a buyer the ground can't be sold to pay creditors......Brilliant...although totally untrue!

Having not followed the Bulls situation as closely as you guys, what were the unacceptable conditions of the initial offers?