No he didn't

So here we are again waiting for news from the “new Board” the silence is the same as when Mr Hood was in pole position, they probably don’t want to spoil the Magic Weekend game for us with bad news!!

It's always amused me a little when people refer to the 'silence' from the board under Hood; remind me when it was different as I've only been interested in the club since the 1950s.... Incidentally, to be fair, didn't the forums start during Hood's regime?

The last bit has a slight ring of possibility about it. The middle of this week was stated as the time they were hopeful of announcing something but maybe there are still some bits to finalise, deals to be concluded etc?

there was a reference in the tna, so deniable by the Board, about it being early this week. and with potential funders wanting to see what they will get for their money, it was never going to be a quick process, the review itself maybe but what follows re funding certainly not. I would have expected them to want to give the fans and team a boost before the weekend, but I am not going to read anything into any delay, otherwise I will get told off by Gurus Beard.

Red's correct.

He didn't.

I kept pointing out at the time: he actually promised nothing other than he had a plan (the "review"icon_wink.gif to come up with a plan. And, tbh, that was surely the prudent thing to say anyway?

I also kept pointing out that the wording was clever: it got many folk - it looks like including you - reading what they THOUGHT he said, rather than what he ACTUALLY said. He was always very cute in that department!

Thought it was Hood who said that they had plans in place if the first £500K was in place. Was that a lie then? Or are we still blaming Caisley for that one?

Or was the plan involving all six numbers coming up on a Saturday?

This is the bit that only Hood/Bennett/Duckett on one side & CC on the other will know.

Hoods Plan A was fans money - [iat least £500k[/i but they never gave out a limit for fans money. They also intimated that they were having discussions with 2-3 other investors as well. Again no specific amounts.

They were very careful not to say - fans raise half then we will raise half.

Caisley's piece on the Friday before pledge deadline in the T&A torpedoed any chance of investment through Hood's efforts (if you believe that there was some in the first place).

The timing of Caisley's input was significant with regard to Hood's Plan A. He didn't have a plan B so that left two options - oblivion or Caisley's plan.

And ever since then we have been waiting for Caisley's plan....

I don't think he ever actually [isaid[/i there was definitely money available if the first £500k was reached, just that they were in talks with people, so it was very open ended. Though I admit I took it as a probable rather than a possible, maybe that was because I wanted to believe it and left my 'thinking head' at home....

CC's intervention, if not deliberate, was spectacularly unfortunately timed though, and as is pointed out above, we'll never know now.

I think you will find, when you read who said what, that none of them actually promised ANYTHING.

The clever part was that they all of them worded what they released in such a way that seemingly the majority of supporters thought they HAD.

Same as politicians.

[i"The Club will now proceed to the next phase of our plan, in connection with which I can confirm a number of confidential discussions are underway."[/i (Website 10/4)
[i
"This income would enable the Club to meet some upcoming liabilities including player and staff salaries and a tax bill. Once these liabilities are met the Club would have a month to six weeks to explore other income / investment opportunities including the possibility of a new ownership model...If the Club is not successful in meeting this first £500,000 target then the future of the Club and its assets are very uncertain. We have spoken to and shared confidential financial information with one or two interested parties and I think they are watching the Pledge campaign very closely."[/i (Website 3/4)

[i"It's a real achievement in such a short space of time and we are really grateful to every person who has donated or is planning fundraising to help the club at this difficult time. However, there is still a long way to go to reach the £1 million we need by the end of April so we would urge anyone who is able to Pledge who has yet to do so to make their Pledge."[/i (Website 28/3)
[i
“We can stay alive for about two and a half weeks. We could just about, at this moment in time, put the Leeds game on. But that could be the last-ever game at Odsal unless money comes in quickly. If we get over the blip, we’ve got a plan that actually takes us forward long-term that physically works as a business. Therefore we wouldn’t need to go back to our fans in 12 months’ time asking for them to bail us out again."[/i(Website27/3, quoting Bennett)

Anyone remember what was in the pledge flyer? Then we have this from the original T&A report[iThe Bulls are targeting £1million and say half of that must come by the middle of April for them to survive. The club are asking for every 2012 Member to donate at least £100 in a bid to save the Bulls. Mr Hood addedif sponsors come forward and we get to between £400,000 and up to £800,000, then it probably would be."[/i (T&A 27/3)(my emphasis)

Reading all that lot, they don't every actually say they have funding in place? Bennett's comments 27/3 come closest.

Anyone got any quotes from what CC came out and said in the piece just before the pledge deadline?

rlonce again...rl

Incidentally, I hope no-one is expecting the all the details of this "root and branch review" to ever be made public? I fear some people are expecting to read a detailed summary of findings and proposals one morning in the T&A.

Given that Ryan Duckett doesn't seem to be being kept in the loop regarding who the auditors actually are, the chances of us knowing anything at any point of any substance are slim to none.

I think that's pretty hard to argue with. So...where is this plan?

Or do we conclude that the original statement was somewhat false?
And they say they had a plan before the pledge, so to blame Caisley for scuppering a plan that was in place two months before seems unfair. I can only conclude there was no plan.

Smoke and mirrors.

I submit that is a conclusion that cannot be drawn from the available facts.

Everything I heard and saw indicated that they DID have a plan. Indeed, they seemed quite positive about the prospects provided the fans could do their bit, and it came across very much that the demonstration of commitment by the fans was likely to be pretty instrumental in persuading the third parties tro commit. Indeed, that is alluded to in one of the staements I quoted. Whether that plan was practicable and realistic or not is a separate issue, and we will likely never know. Maybe it was, maybe it was not, but it was not to be.

But you will note that the Caisley camp made reference in subsequent statements to seeking to revive the opportunities that the previous board was pursuing, which comes pretty close to a QED in my books?

My own opinion is that Caisley's intervention, timed as it was the day after it was clear that the pledges had suddenly picked up and the day before the pledge deadline when it suddenly looked like we might make it, and making it clear as he did that the board did not have the backing of a majority of the shareholders, was guaranteed to make any prospective investor or sponsor hold off until the internal power struggle was resolved. Only he knows if that was his intent, or just an unfortunate (for some) accident.