Well, I was told a rumour shortly after . . . . . . probably safest
IMO, if his letter had been a post on this forum, many would have dismissed it as trolling.

I left the variant on that that I heard out of what I have said, mindful of the rules on defamation...

I never had him down as narcissistic, more smug self satisfied teflon man.

There can hardly be a person left in south Bradford who somebody we know hasn't told that precise same tale to along with all that Reading Bullette has just spouted on the T and A message board.

No mention of the disastrously costed Odsal deal I note.

A fair bit of the RB post can be objectively verified or is self-evident though?

As for the variant on the rumour that I heard, it most definitely did not come from Duffy. With any and all due respect to the Duffster, my source was a pretty convincing one.

He's hardly likely to do that! Since in the 2004 Accounts he held the fans (or lack of) as being responsible for the deteriorating financial situation (the one he neglects to mention he was well aware of in his letter, yet expressed serious concern about in the 2004 Accounts in his last Chairman's report before he went...) and its the fans he is now trying to curry favour with.

His letter is highly selective in what he chooses to say and what to omit to say, I suggest?

ps. In "disastrously costed", do I take it you now admit the possibility that it might have been far from the terrible deal for council tax payers that the good burghers of Keighley alleged at the time?

How can the fact we recieved derisory sums for the Burgi be laid at CC's door and not at the door of the club who held their contract? When did CC have us start a season with one thirty odd yr old Aussie half back who didn't want to be here and then blamed not only that years debacle on him but the one after? We've been through this and as well you know we could list the atrocious decisions until tomorrow.

What is annoying in this is a series of people who cannot face up to the fact that between them they have ruined the club. McNamaragate is every bit as damaging as Harrisgate. RB states, 'He is a complete and utter joke and the club would be best served if he kept his bitter mouth shut and let the people who have kept it going for the last five years carry on doing it'. The first part of the sentence might be justified but anyone who has sat through the last 5 years can only pray the second half doesn't come true.

This, in my opinion is the most important question from a very good set you posed.

Whilst we can now accept in hindsight we were riding the crest of a wave that seemingly wasn't going to end, did Caisley know the limitations and resign in and around those circumstances? Or did he have as little idea as 90% of people in and around the club.



I'd be inclined to agree. Like you say, certainly seems he is trying to win over the people he once suggested were at fault, in expense of making the current regime look the villain in all of this, which I find slightly farfetched.

Maybe Caisley sees that day when he'll come back riding his shiny white stead on the horizon, hence a PR initiative to try to win the favour of the fans?

Who's RB?

RB is Reading Bullette a regular poster on the T & A website on most Bulls stories

There are little bits of Caisley's letter which I agree with. But it cannot be denied that it misses alot of vital information out.

Is it just me who had a tiny thought that Caisley might be interested in taking over again after reading this?

While he ignores the bigger questions I can't see him being able to do any better with the club than the current blokes running it. Caisley was never a sugar daddy and until we get one we are where we are.

When he ran the club he had the stadium costs covered by the the council, large amounts of Sky money and after that large amounts of council settlement money. Once all that had gone so was he.

He has a point about the pretty abysmal recruitment record the club has in the past 5 years but part of that must be put into a context of a club with rapidly decreasing amounts of money. The reasons for that can be largely traced to decisions made when Caisley was chairman (even if Hood was a director of the board at the time so also bears some responsibility).

In short, the club's current set up has made mistakes and could do better but they do operate in a much tougher environment than that Caisley had to cope with. For him to whinge about the way things are now and see no fault in himself speaks volumes for his opinion of himself.