Strangest bit was where CC is apparently to become a 'consultant'; this the bloke who thought going for Iestyn Harris was a good idea...! Still, as I've posted before, hopefully he will have learnt lessons from previous mistakes, so let's hope for the best.

Well, I for one never believed that there is any rich backer, on either side.

That is, I'm sure both sides will have had a number of discussions with parties who they hoped could be persuaded, but the problem we have is the difference between acquiring (1) a rich backer who sees their funds as in any way at all some sort of "investment"; and (2) a rich backer who just wants the club to succeed and is prepared to throw away large sums of money to that end.

No (2) has ever been sighted in these parts, not even a fleeting rear glimpse in the woods, and there are not even rumours of the existence of one.

And anyone of type (1) looking at it as a straight business investment in the harsh light of day would obviously conclude that it just isn't one. No club is.

A decent sponsor or two wouldn't go amiss, but IMHO that's the best we can hope for. I can't see any backer wanting to do their cash in, in large amounts, perrennially, riding into the fray any time soon.

Where does that leave us? Well, until Robin Hood does arrive, having to cut our cloth accordingly, and stop pretending that we can compete on a level playing field with the likes of Wire, as without a (2), it is pie in the sky. I can see ways in which an administration can be avoided - although I put the chances at no better than 50-50 - but I can only see us as a selling club for the foreseeable.

Musical chairs with various levels of personnel may occur, and is all very well, but money is the one commodity that could make the real difference, and it's the one thing we have neither got, nor look in danger of getting.

Never have I hoped more that I am wrong. I hope the new Board have a Euromillions sydicate going, you never know.

On Adey's post, it was Coulby who said CC wanted to step down earlier due to a young family and was persuaded to stay on.
Plus his role as a sports agent maybe conflicted were he to take up a directorship. perhaps he's in the proces of resolving this now.

On GB's post I agree that neither Tasker or Noble's input would necessarily mean they were looking for a long term role. Both are lifelong Northern/Bulls fans probably as sad as we are at what has befallen us.

I think perhaps we've all analysed the Harris saga to the enth degree. We've all made significant errors in business; however the further up the ladder the bigger the fall. Hood also made serious mistakes (hence where we are now) but bashing these folks when it suits the mantra isn't the positive energy that is needed right now. Clean slate and all that.

As for Ducketts long term involvement, it would be foolish to lose his skills and ability to conduct himself impeccably in a sandstorm. I'm not sure he will remain CEO but that's no bad thing providing his replacement is high quality.

As Maislebugs said, a poster whom I seem to agree on most things, both Noble and Tasker are lifelong Bulls/Northern fans with extremely strong track records. I think their "agenda" is quite simply objectively review and take it from there. And that for me, is perfect sense.

I'd honestly not read too much into the wording, and certainly nothing sinister. Its almost certainly codespeak for explaining how CC can play a very major role now, without actually being on the board and having director responsibilities and laibilities, IMO. Quite common for someone to be brought in as a "consultant" for form's sake, but with the possibility or intent or aspiration of ultimately taking on executive responsibilities - in fact, that is exactly how I ended up in my own present role...!

What I truly hope, going forward, is that we have a board and/or executive team that together have the skills and expertise and experience that befits an operation of this scale and nature. And each their own man (or woman) and not just yes-men. In recent years we have clearly been desperately constrained by lack of money, leading IMO to too few capable people being asked to spread themselves far too thinly. Whether any sugar daddy will manifest himself to resolve this problem as it has for Wire and Pies and Hudds and Hull etc is pretty debatable IMO.

Inceidentally, I forgot to mention above that another reason CC may not be able to determine his future role just now is the potential conflict of interest being a player's agent. Not sure how say a Leeds player would feel if his manager was the chairman of a rival club! This might not be a five minute job to sort out, so its another reason why undue speculation is probably futile and counter-productive right now.

And I see that while I was typing MB already made the point re CC's existing commitments. And thanks to him for noting where the young family comments had come from - I knew I'd read it on the T&A but could not remember whetehr it was from forum posts or in an article

Speaking of 'expertise', what do we know about Stephen Coulby and Roland Agar?

I've heard their names before, obviously, but I don't know anything about them. What expertise in business, marketing, strategic skills etc, do they bring to the situation?

The issue of CC being a plaers' agent is a big elephnat in the room and should not be underestimated. Personally I can't see how you could be a director, and at the same time an agent of a club player, as there seems to be potential for an utterly hopeless conflict of interests.

I was never comfortable with one of our largest shareholders being the agent for the likes of Sam, but it's legal, and that's a personal matter for the shareholder, who has no duties towards the club, unlike a director. (Nor in Sam's case was it instrumental as he'd have gone whoever his agent was.)

Does anyone know if a club director can under RFL rules also be a players' agent? If they can, I still don't think they should.

I'm not sure a sugar daddy is a prudent way forward. But then, nor should we ignore a "gimme"

An effective business model where in absolutely simplistic terms, we are earning more than we are spending doesn't require George Osbournes input. Far too many sporting entities are highly ineffective in this country and wouldn't survive in any other business sector.

As for CCs family commitment, we all have those and we can all re-adjust those for the right opportunities. It's a flexible term by its definition of timescale, that is, his young children have grown up somewhat. His choice either way I suppose.

The issue of being a player agent I don't see as being an issue, should a player from a "rival" club not deem it to be one. There's also an assumption that he will continue this in an RL capacity as opposed to the focus of his core agent work in football and RU. The sale of Sam Burgess probably secured our future longer than we realise. Either way, I can't see it being an issue unless the geniuses at the RFL determine otherwise, and them taking on a solicitor would be brave, or players in RL he represents have an issue with it. Right now, I don't feel it's a core element in the impending review.

Roland Agar is a wholesale butcher. He owns the slaughterhouse in Ilkley and has a sizeable wholesale meat business, and so I suspect is a no-nonsense real-world businessman. He also has very active involvement with the academy.

I have seen it said that coulby is a banker or similar, but know nothing of his background or expertise.

I am quite sure it is NOT a prudent way forward!

But, sadly, unless the new board can come up with some new business model that has hitherto escaped the rest of the competition, I fear its the only way we'll ever challenge for the top 4 again in the foreseeable future. Either way, if a sugar daddy chooses to present himself, I'd be entirely happy for the club to take whatever was on offer.

He'll know all about slaughtering bulls then.

Agree entirely. I argued at the time this placed our own board in an impossible position and I wonder if with hindsight they wished they'd resigned there and then forcing CC into the open.

The players will be ok for burgers then. Maybe we can tempt Solomona back with an offer he couldn't refuse.

Indeed, but such a business model in the context of an SL team won't win any pots, and will not be acceptable to the fans. By which I mean it will be a business model that will leave you permanently moored near the bottom of the league, with ever diminishing crowds.

It is totally unreasonable for fans to fail to accept that a team must live within its means, but that's fans for you. The fans say that, if you run a club, you must "make the full salary cap available" to your coach, and whenever a top player becomes available, you are expected to splash the cash.