Direct quote from CC c/o T&A


“Peter seemingly believes that he and Mr Bennett give the club the best chance of successfully finding a pathway through the financial difficulties because they are in discussions with potential investors who are of a similar view"

So Hoods plan was a reality. It existed, even CC acknowledges this
Since stepping down all investment that has been discussed in the rags has talked of REVIVING discussions on investment.

'Peter seemingly believes' is hardly a preface to a an acknowledgement of fact. The next sentence begins 'the majority of the shareholders disagree' which would suggest CC felt that Peter was the only person who 'believed'.

Given that Caisley + Agar + Tasker + Coulby = "the majority", and Hood + Bennett = "the minority", which is 4 vs 2, I suggest that you too are suggesting something that is hardly supported by facts either?

What seems clear is that the selective conclusions people draw (doubtless people will say including my own) are being influenced by their stances towards the two camps and their interpretation of the semantics in the various statements.

Everything you heard and saw indicvated that they had a plan they hadn't acted upon in six years (less in Bennett's case). You didn't see a plan, nor had they acted upon it even though they had taken a huge loan from the RFL and sold the lease on the ground to pay it back. A plan which was being formed whilst statements were made regarding the next game being likely to be the club's last? Do you think they were the slightest bit tardy coming up with this plan?

I remember the T and A making references to the Caisley camp 'reviving' the opportunities originally pursued by Hood and Co but I'm not sure I heard it from CC or Coulby. I heard Coulby say word to the effect that the rest of the significant shareholders could not work with Peter owing to his conduct.

I don't remember this assumed timeline where in a sequence the following happened 1, the pledge looked likely to fail. 2, the pledge surged. 3, Caisley intervened to sabotage pledge.

You infer that CC's intention is unknowable but you clearly suspect and have sequenced the information with this in mind. I would argue on the basis of what we do know. We know in late March the Chairman and CEO announced that despite selling the lease on the ground the fans needed to come up with £500k or the club would go bankrupt. A few weeks later (much later than many including myself had hope for) CC intervened. This is what happened - not what the type of 'we'll never knows' that have been woven on this board.

You appear to believe that a figure who held 26% of the shares and had, in the interim, garnered support from a further 25%+ of the shareholding was under some kind of obligation to sit silently by, in the hope that the current board would find the required investment despite not having previously done so. As you clearly believe CC 'timed' his intervention, do you think he should not have intervened at all or perhaps should have waited? If he should have waited, how long would you suggest was reasonable considering as the largest shareholder, his stake was the most vulnerable of all to either administration or, liquidation?

CC HAD to intervene to save both the club and his own interest in it from what I have argued long (and often alone) was the inevitable path to administration. The idea that he 'timed' this action to scupper the plans of those who had previously sold the lease on their own premises and reduced the fans to bucket collections outside the KC Stadium is somehow more than absurd. It's the result of some kind of mania about Chris Caisley which looks sillier the more it is aired.

There were two games in town; adminstration (which I would have taken and you argued against) or Caisley.

I rest my case.

Right, you can knit fog in post after post amounting to thousands of words and when they're challenged it's evidence of blind prejudice?

That's rather poor.

I have worked my life in the IT industry..

There is nothing more sad to me when a group of people try to "Out Know" each other for no other reason than.. what? I know more than you?

The number of threads on this board where fellow Bulls fans argue endlessly about the current issues, each laying claim to a variety of angles seems a waste of energy and causes great divides - when we are all supposed to be wanting the same thing?

Bearing in mind how little information is available and has been since the pledge closed - we appear to have pages and pages of guesswork?

My own summary then;

Its a right mess.
The fans are divided over the arrival of Chris Caisley.
The fans are divided over the arrival of Brian Noble (pending information of his role).
We may go into administration - but we might not.
We may lose some of our best players very soon.
The players and the fans have been fantastic since all this started.
It stops there.
And its still a right mess.
We all await the next (multiple) moves and some bits of information - but with no idea what they are actually going to be.
And after all that - it still could be a right mess!
Hows that?

We're discussing, not arguing and who cares where you work

Bollox.

I could in turn challenge and counter every point in yours. But I see little to be gained from arguing with someone who seems unreceptive to any alternative argument, and chooses anyway to be disingenuous in quoting me (e.g. the plan I was referring to was of course the one to get them out of the hole they were in; you said "blind prejudice", I neither said nor alleged that) when it suits. You and I have a different stance on this issue, and if either of us was going to change ours stance based on what the other argued, we would have done so long before now. It ain't gonna happen (in my case, at least unless more actual pertinent facts come to light), and I'm far too busy right now to want to attempt it.

Ps. "I rest my case" refered to "What seems clear is that the selective conclusions people draw (doubtless people will say including my own) are being influenced by their stances towards the two camps and their interpretation of the semantics in the various statements."

Your reply just served to prove that precise point.

Double post

You missed out "It's a total and complete criminal fekking mess", but otherwise seems pretty well spot on to me.

Is this the 5 minute discussion or the full half hour? Anyway, you most certainly did not.

Did not what?

I prefered the Dead Parrot one.