I don't disagree that Caisley indeed did buy into Brian Smiths and Peter Deakins vision for the Bulls at the start of SL. My problem is that he overeached himself by trying to buy more success that the Bulls had by breaking the SC and more damagingly getting into a p!ssing contest with Caddick at Leeds and costing the Club even more financial damage which is still being paid for!
So no I don't want him back (Batams fans probably would feel the same way about a certain Geoffrey Richmond coming back, and there are parallels of delusional grandeur with both of them)

Caisley did more than buy into those visions. Without Caisley, there would have been no Smith or Deakin.

Caisley also did overreach himself and get into the said "p!ssing contest".

As I said above, both are true. If we could be confident that he had learnt the second lesson, I'd welcome back the man who - more than Smith, more (I would suggest) even than Deakin - created the Bulls. If we can't be confident of that, we would be better off trying to continue to fight our way back with a safe pair of hands, rather than a visionary.

However, while we have the current set of circumstances in place, it's going to be a long hard road back, and I can't help wishing for the sort of vision that has allowed us to achieve the unthinkable once already.

If Caisley is our major shareholder, has he ever really been "out"

He's got plenty of experience we could draw on and if he could fit into the long term plan the current board have without pulling that off track he could certainly add something for example his role as players agent certainly gives him the contacts to advise of the right players to look at. He's certainly a strong personality who, I think, could eloquently put forward the Bull's case in dealings with the assorted bodies we need to move forward (Bradford council springs to mind).
Given the caveats of not repeating previous mistakes I'd say anyone with relevant skills and the best interests of the Bull's should be welcomed.

Anything that will spark the now mostly dormant Leeds-Bradford rivalry would be a good thing from my perspective.

I'm sure El Presidente will relish locking horns with his former rival, especially now that the boot appears to be well and truly on the other foot (at the moment at least).



That said, Hood & co have obviously done a very good job rebuilding the core strength of the club. It's a shame for Bradford that the first team has slumped so much during their tenure though.

I have plenty of doubts. Diplomacy has never been his strong point and he's got plenty of enemies as a result. I think there's probably too much baggage really. He's no moneybags and certainly couldn't attract anyone like that to the club during his tenure (some might say he put people off!).

He may have attracted Brian Smith, but Brian Smith has said he came on condition that Peter Deakin came too. Could Caisley repeat the trick again? We had the benefit of a large amount of Sky money then which we don't now.

What he does have is a lot of experience, but as has been said it's not clear if he's learnt from the larger mistakes he's made in the latter part of his tenure. We don't know the full facts about his departure either. So many unknowns.

I do wonder about this story and if there are rumblings behind the scenes. What price a Caisley and Noble return?

It's not a question of "re-investing" as he never sold his shareholding. As has been pointed out he has had both good and bad influences on our fortunes but the disastrous consequences of losing the legal battle over the Harris signing will forever hang over him.

This all comes from the Sun, btw. I wouldn't accept the date on the Sun without checking.

without Caisley we would not be talking about Bulls now, they would be long gone!

1996-2005
2 wembley finals and one at twickenham
2 challenge cup wins
5 grand finals in a row and one more, winning 3
3 world club championships
1 old style super league!

versus
2005- 2009
no finals
no playoffs last year

mmmm.... what would you choose?

ok perhaps a little simplistic, but point is Caisley did not buy into Deakin's vision, Deakin bought into his and took it on.

a chairman brings in good people and delegates.

ok, his spat with GH was embarrasing and expensive, but that is one error that he made. The academy etc.. bringing through home grown players was the job of the Football department, headed for most of the time by Noble or Duffy!

DUFFY OUT!!!!!!! its all his fault!

The Harris debacle should never have happened, Caisley is a lawyer ffs. Its hard not to blame him totally for that.

A little simplistic and then some mate! If you look at the accounts it's obvious that we were living beyond our means under Caisley. The slump from 2005 til present would have happened anyway as the cash was running out. It's not a case of choosing at all.

Add in Harrisgate and we have an enormous poop sandwich. Caisley was largely responsible for the situation we're in now (financial losses and the move back to Odsal costing the club the earth). If anyone thinks his return will transform the club again they're mistaken (unless he's become a multi millionaire recently!)

is caisley the biggest single shareholder or the majority shareholder? If the latter then if he wants back in the board will have no say.

personally wouldnt want him back, as he played a large part in causing the underlying problems that lead to the slump post 2005. We're on the up again now and it wouldnt be very fair on the current management, who've had to take all the abuse and criticsm for last 4 years whilst sorting out the mess they inherited, If caisley took charge again and got all the credit.
On a similar note can't see a way to bring noble back either. If he came as director of rugby it would totally undermine macca and we all know noble's answer to everything was to sign a aussie. We're just starting to see the benefits of the work done to resurrect the youth system which macca and medley have put in place and they should be around to reap the benefits.

I think it's the former, but there will be a couple of people on here that can confirm or refute that.