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?

Sorry Adey but if CC not majority shareholder who backed him up to ask Hood & co to resign?

Roland Agar, and smaller shareholders Gary Tasker (or those he spoke for) and Coulby with his remaining very small holding, I believe. Not sure if any others. Not sure about Jack Bates' holding.

NOthing so far to indicate my diagnosis was wrong. the black hole is still the difference between income and cost of sales, including Odsal. It doesnt take long to do a cash flow, in these circumstances it will take a long time to do a credible cash flow. The worrying thing about Coulby deriding the alleged budgeted £1m loss is the lack of any apparent understanding of why that should be, and their alternative plans to magically increase sales or reduce costs by that £1m to come to a break even point. Caisley couldnt do it first time around, so what has Coulby got that Caisley and Hood hadnt. Answers on the head of a pin, please.

Also very interesting to see that the rumours are that caisley is threatening to leave VP, wasnt coulby shocked and horrified that Hood discussed the very same thing in his revelations a few days ago? Maybe the penny has dropped. Reviewing a business plan/budget, and creating one require very different skills. What occupation suits Coulbys skill(s) set?

Coulby so far has shown himself to be thoroughly naive as to the issues facing the club. And for a shareholder, worryingly unaware of them. So lets hope he really is Crusher Caisleys muppet.

Round 2.

Adey, a bit cross thread, but the answers to your questions are, it is really pretty tedious otherwise.)
When i say settlement I mean the amount we agreed to pay Leeds. That specifically excludes our payment to Leeds of £64K ordered by Gray when we lost the first hearing, our own costs for that and any of our subsequent costs. The latter are all too deeply buried in the accounts for us to ever fathom out. But if Leeds costs were £64 K it sets a benchmark for our own defence costs for that hearing. Subsequent legal costs are also a guess, but again we may have a guide in the settlement figure to Leeds.
For that settlement figures I have taken the following figures/statements/assumptions.
The settlement was paid in three equal annual instalments, 2009 -11 The settlement was fully accrued in the 2008 accounts.
Assuming correct accounting, one third of the settlement is within accruals due within one year, and two thirds is within the due two years and more balance in those 2008 accounts.
Taking the latter, this had in previous years included the Odsal settlement deferred income, but in 2008 there was only one year left, so was in the within 1 year and not in the over 1 year.
That figure in the 2008 accounts, for accruals and deferred income due over 2 year, is £241601. Grossing that up from the 2/3rds it should represent to the full amount gives us a maximum of £360000, the balance being within due within 1 year.
As always, if anyone has any better figures, I would welcome them.
On the Awford issue, the point I was making was it was yet another straw on the camels back, irrespective of the size. Yes, when I was doing the trend analysis I realised that the less than 12 months deferred income was season ticket sales, my error is in fact is miscalculating the timing of the pass through of the odsal deferred income, which was actually 2009 rather than 2010. That led me to make an incorrect calculation for 2009 ie £900k minus Odsal settlement of £324k or so, is circa £600k, 2010 figure definitely does not have Odsal in it, so an increase on a like for like basis to £1m which would be plenty for both an increase due to the pledge etc and a bit for Awford.
The endBut I was wrong, it is just an increase of £100K, and that is probably the fact most relevant to our current predicament: it indicates that the first year of the pledge appears to have only raised an additional £100K more than the previous years season ticket sales. So after the subsequent poor performance on the field, just how successful was pledge year 2? And for the whole pledge thing to work, year one had to be successful on the field, otherwise...black hole. And Odsal.
I was always suspicious about the pledge totals magically being met. And a learning point for Coulby. He derided the reduction in season ticket prices. What this indicates is that increasing season ticket prices will not necessarily increase income sufficiently. Cue plan C. A Nigerian diplomat that needs to get some money out of the country

I suspect Pledge 2 was seen as a bit of a disaster, pretty well for the reasons you say.

When I am less tired I will dig out the accounts again, but I can see where you are going with your logic.

My suspicion was always that Mr Caisley would seek administration to gain control and then to get us out of Odsal and down to VP. The Odsal lease sale and the pledge very much complicated the situation and will have made both actions considerably more difficult IMO should someone seek to do that still. Whether the actions described on another thread, by someone who (if it is true) would seem to have been leaked to in the same way the Caisley camp on here derided the previous board for allegedly so doing, are in any way connected with this scenario can only be a matter for speculation.

As for Mr Coulby's comments, I suggest it would be prudent to remember there is still a battle being fought and so they may not be impartial or tell the whole story. I have a feeling Mr Coulby is considerably less naive than you suggest. I certainly hope so, since the future is at least partly in his hands.

So who is COULBY?

What is his background?

How much is HE PERSONALLY willing to inject from HIS OWN PERSONAL FORTUNE into his beloved BULLS?

Why is such a GREAT 'MOVER & SHAKER'?

I find it slightly disconcerting that significant amounts of the data and information filtered from "the club" through to a couple of posters on here (who post in high volume) are largely bullet-led and essentially, inaccurate. That these are taken as being gospel is even more worrying.

I outlined weeks ago the ongoing VAT fiasco along with the clubs inability and failure to repay the RFL loan, despite agreed timescales; only now has that come to the fore in a relatively official capacity. Sadly, there is more to come and the black hole, is just that. Unfortunately admittance of the true level of debt have been somewhat masked by the previous BoD and indeed some staff in general. Understandable some may say, but it certainly outlines the level of trust I would place on their declarations or 'inside line'.

Given that, it is evident the review is likely to be more complex than we appreciate and not simply a GCSE Economics cost v revenue formula.

Predications of administration and the pre-constructed reasons, are way off the mark.