Wow. The only 3 things a bank will listen to. Bad PR, the guys who make laws and shareholders(is it 70% taxpayer owned?)

Dunno, but the Ryan Bailey thread on southstander is over 250 pages...

Lets hope it doesn't beat any longest thread, because it'll be locked once things are sorted.

Absolutely. It is a very shrewd piece of PR from an extremely polished, well-versed operator.

The thing is, Chris Caisley hasn't just reacted now out of the goodness of his own heart to rectify the problems at the Bulls and save the club. Rather than being driven by passion for RL and Bradford, he seems to be driven largely by self-interest.

Caisley has been anticipating this moment for some time and planning his reaction for just such an occasion. Really, he has no more of a fixed plan about the way forward than the current board do but because he represents change, his words are being well received among a significant section of the fanbase. He left the club in a state of near disarray, slipping out the back door at just the right time, and has now spotted a chance to capitalise on the fallout and act as saviour.

Significant change is clearly needed at the club but is this the answer? Unless Caisley outlines clear plans about what he intends to do to rectify the current situation and lay down a structured framework for future survival and success, then clearly not. The last thing we need is to be sold more vague pipe dreams.

Is a man who places a winding up order on a club really someone who is acting in its best interests? Someone who can look at a situation objectively and suggest a way forward without bias or agenda?

I was not aware that Mr Caisley having apparently sought to wind up the club he professes to love was in the public domain?

That was why I specifically made no mention of it in anything I have posted hitherto.

But I was aware of it. And would very much have liked to have been able to say it, especially in the context of unexpected additional cash outflows that may or may not have contributed to the current situation.

Amen to that brother

Rolland Agar is the man to lead this club forward be that under Chris Caisley's consortium or from taking over from Peter Hood.

My question was merely a hypothetical one of course! I couldn't possibly comment one way or the other.

Just been reading some of the comments on the T&A article about Caisley. Can't believe the number of people making direct comparisons between the Caisley and Hood eras without any appreciation of the change of circumstances and who may have been responsible for them. Some people on there seem to think Caisley will simply wave a magic wand and you'll be winning trophies again with Noble at the helm.

Clucking bell, this gets more and more like LOTR every day .

Saruman has just shown his hand and employed his silken tongue, what you now need is Gandalf, a few hundred Rohirrim, an elf with a bow, a dwarf with a bl00dy big axe and a bloke with a broken sword. Shouldn't be too hard to find in our wonderful ethnic melting pot. Although an AK47 might be more realistic.

Really feel for you now, can't think of anyone in RL that I dislike more than Caisley.

Indeed - that is the problem with the rumour mill, in the absence of hard facts as is the case here and in quite a few other stories that do the rounds.

If it transpired that it was true, it would surely be something the club - or at least Mr Hood - would have wanted to have made public? I fear we may get to see quite a lot more rumour and innuendo flying around now

I thought Caisley's "bad guy" image was a myth created by bitter Keighley fans.

Or are we all in agreement now about him?

The likes of Agar, Tasker and Noble are the types of people I'd want helping move the club forward from where we are at the moment.

Caisley? Not so much, but if he is the man bringing them together then so be it, we also have to remember that prior to the mess that the Ietsyn Harris case turned out to be and the legacy of the way the Odsal settlement was spent the club had gone places under his leadership.

I've seen a few comments about losing goodwill because Caisley rubbed people up the wrong way and offended people, that's undoubtedly ture, but only because he was in charge of a club doing well. Hood has made similarly ridiculous comments to the press (suing the RFL, demanding two points because of a refereeing error) but is just thought of as a laughing stock by the rest of the game for it, if the Bulls had achieved anything on the pitch under his watch he'd be on the way to the same kind of unpopularity Caisley has.

Bugger that for a game of soldiers.

I want whatever hardware the Valar used to give the good citizens of Numenor a chance for a spot of swimming. THEN the buggers will learn what having a bad day REALLY means...

He was also active in wanting financially troubled clubs thrown out of the league, not just in running a succesful club.

I think this perhaps sums up best how I feel about the whole situation to be perfectly honest.

Well said, especially re: Hood and Caisley and popularity. Caisley had a smack of the Man United's about him; he was in charge of a club doing well, who everyone loathes and wants to be.