Great, a p1$$!ng contest, just what's needed to sort this mess out.

Well hopefully somewhere in between both sides of the story we will hear some of the truth.

And if the black hole is growing it makes it even more difficult to stabilise the club's finances.

I just find it incredible that the RFL were prepared to enter into such an arrangement when they knew the club couldn't repay the initial loan. I could understand them converting that loan into a lease but to advance even more money seems completely reckless, an extreme case of throwing good money after bad..

The arrangement was to enable the club to repay the loan, since they had seemingly repaid none of it hitherto and had no prospect of doing so.

Leakers from Red Hall were seemingly briefing on a "large Yorkshire club" being on the verge of administration last autumn.

People, including Coulby it seems, have been speculating why the RFL sought prompt repayment of te £350k that the club apparently believed was to remain outstanding this year. Maybe you have provided an answer?

But the RFL did not advance more money, beyond our liability now to pay rent. It bought an asset, apparenty on the basis of a professional independent valuation, and as I said at the time quite possibly got a pretty good deal overall given our weak bargaining position?

I don't get it either. But then to lend it, and then immediately take it back, even though it plunges the club into a financial mess, that seems pretty weird too.

They did not lend it then immediately take it back. The loan very much predated the asset sale. They sought repayment out of the sale proceeds, which seems sensible? And the club came out of it £550k better off in immediate cash terms. How was that plunging the club into a financial mess? It should have resulted in precisely the opposite. That it did NOT is the black hole question that I want to see answered!

Just an observation. Even accounting for the fact that you've guessed the 100k figure, people tell you an extraordinary amount of information. Why?

Because I take the trouble to ask? Instead of relying totally on speculation? Do YOU ever take the trouble to ask? And you don't need to be a known club sympathiser to get answers. Go ask the likes of Staffbull.

Nine others were with me when the VAT and the image rights liabilities were discussed. we were not told numbers. The first time I saw confirmation of the VAT number was yesterday. It was broadly what I expected given the figures that had been bandied about for the sale value of te lease. The image rights number: I am assuming that a number that several other people have quoted is correct, until refuted.

As a little indication: I specifically asked Ryan, when all this blew up how much we received for the lease. He refused to tell me. I said that I had seen numbers between £1.2m and £2m mentioned. The best I got was him saying it was probably somewhere between those two figures. I got closer confirmation from outside.

As for the "six figure loan" that is pure deduction. The leaked letter indicated we needed £600k to avoid administration. The pledge raised £500k. Yet we escaped administration. How so? I deduce that one of the then board or someone like Colin Tordoff filled the gap. If anyone can improve on that, please do so.

If you don't ask you don't get. Have you ever asked? At least then it is your own judgment that is at least partly to blame if you believe what you were told and it transpires it was incorrect.

And it should hardly be any surprise that it is mainly financial information that I have either been told or deduced; I am an accountant, after all, and one who has operated at board level for many years, so it should be obvious what field I would concentrate on?

And anyway, you won't need to worry in future. I doubt the new board will share much with supporters, and I would be extremely surprised if anything at all with me.

I see someone seems to be sharing an extraordinary amount with Frank Whitcombe right now. Have you asked him the same question?

Please Please can somebody help me to understand how a big loan can be taken out and the majority shareholder in the club knows nothing about it? for us people who know nothing about finance it doesn't seem to stack up.Is it really possible for minority shareholders to do this? and if so wer'e all doomed Mr. Mannering

Has it ever been suggested Mr Caisley did not know about the loan from the RFL?

Shareholders appoint directors to manage their business. Shareholders receive annual accounts and attend the AGM at which they can ask questions. They can of course engage with their directors more frequently, and larger shareholders invariably will, if they are not already directors themselves.

If a majority of the voting shareholders are dissatisfied with their directors, they can remove them from office, or require them to resign. As has just happened.

The club had no majority shareholder. Mr Caisley was the largest with just over 25%, followed by Mr Hood with just over 20%.

Not too often I agree with Adey "use 1,000 words when 20 will do" Bull, but for once, he talks sense. If anyone wants to know the answers, ask the questions to the Club. I did and have been exceedingly impressed with the way these queries have been handled

Don't worry.

Nothing will happen.

The RFL somehow think that thye need a mal-administrated club to improve their image.

I'm just waiting for their explanation as to why Crusaders were relagated and Northern will not suffer any penalty!

Thanks not sure I really understand it all, but staffbull who did you ask at the club?