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.