I love the "take his word, as a solicitor" comment!

He clearly didn't want to take his word as a 'gentleman', which would have been the more normal response, did he!

Bennett was playing it pretty cute there, with that wording. Caisley now either has to confirm he DOES have firm investment lined up, or acknowledge that all he has is a plan to come up with a plan and that could mean administration.

If he DOES so confirm, then Bennett seems to be telegraphing that him and Hood will happily go, if that is the price for securing the investment for the futureBut if Peter and I cannot raise the immediate investment and secure the long-term future of the club in the very near future, then we will have no option other than to accept Mr Caisley at his word, as a solicitor, that he has a strategy in place to attract investment and has a survival package for the club.

“I believe he expressed this quite clearly in an article in the T&A – and we would welcome this survival package with open arms.[/i"

If he does NOT so confirm, then if/when he DOES sieze control then if he does NOT deliver on investment he knows he will be widely viewed as a liar who gained control under false pretenses.

Appreciate what you are saying – however the Bulls are a business and that means potentially my membership funds will be paying him, whether in salary or via divedends, especially as the admin route will bring him a 100% shareholding, that I could not live with. I have morals and if I mess up I hold my hand up and accept the consequences, Mr Caisley has neither any morals and has never held his hand up regarding the Harris affair and other issues of his doing.

I have supported the club through thick and thin for well over 30 years but I could not support the club with him at the helm or pulling the strings again.....

FC Bulls of Bradford anyone? {joke}

What is the likelihood of CC making public his plans for the club if he gains control so we can understand what direction he intends the to go..NIL. He does not have to name names just outline his roadmap for the future as some past politician used to say

The silence since the pledge target was reached as been deafening so any soundbite should be well received by fans. However, when the troubles were announced i thought the statement read along the lines of 'if the fans/sponsors etc could raise the 500k then the board of directors have plans in place to move this club forward'? What exactly were these plans?
did they have a plan or was it really a case of, see of anyone will invest if we get some other muppets to raise half a million quid for us.

A couple of weeks ago, the groundswell of opinion was that we should get behind the club whoever is in charge.


That should not change. Nomatter how unpalletable Caisley and Hodd/Bennett maybe, if they are in charge, it means there is a club to be incharge of. that is what counts!

Secure, the future, then argue about it!

This.

Cannot believe that some posters will only continue supporting the bulls providing Caisley isn't running the show. You are not true fans.

Really??

Because some people have looked at the recent history and facts surrounding the club and cannot support a regime that given chance will plunge us into another 6 plus years of hell to satisfy their own ego? Some of us that can see Caisley for what he is and what he is after?? If Caisley cared about the Bulls and its fans would he have done any of the following the last time he was in charge? –

- High Court action against Leeds (we lost by the way, Caisley still got paid though...)
- Built the coral stand with settlement monies – you know that big white elephant in the ground where the WAGs watch the game..... forget how much it cost but it was alot more than £1million we need now.....
- Ask the fans to come to games in greater numbers due to our year on year financial losses.... he was in charge of the balance sheet and the spending.....
Or more recently -
- Act as agent in the sale of Sam and George Burgess to Souths whilst the majority shareholder of the club they played for – conflict of interest surely?
- Try just last year to wind the club up because he didn’t receive a dividend on his shares, whilst every other shareholder waived it
- Timed his “attack” on Hood and the current regime to totally destabilise the current fight for survival, so he could pick us up when in Admin

Its all well and good buying success if you have deep pockets.... we didn’t and the mess we are in is all down to Chris Caisley, can you understand now why I don’t want this pariah near our club because with him at the helm there will be no club in the near future.

Once bitten, twice shy......

I'd love to know whether this was actually true or not.

Just because you have shares doesn't automatically entiltle you to a dividend. That is declared by the directors based on the results - ie normally if there was a profit.

I think you would need to be a very optimistic person to expect a dividend from a shareholding in a rugby league club.

I have been told it was monies owed for interest on a directors loan that was not paid not a dividend on shares.

Its not.

At least as regarding a dividend, anyway.

You can only threaten winding up if you are owed money by a company. No dividends were declared (or could be, given the financial situation), and a dividend is only a liability once it is declared.

Earlier accounts showed around £85k of interest accrued on loans made by directors and former directors going back ten years or more (the loans themselves were repaid out of the Odsal Settlement 2002/3.). Of this amount, Caisley was shown as being owed nearly £50k. That is the only item shown in recent accounts as being owing to Caisley.

I stand corrected regarding dividends and loans - doesn't alter that he tried to wind us up......