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?

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.

yep Adeybull and FA will certainly know. I suspect he's largest single shareholder too. IIRC he was forced to re-sign by board over harris fiasco and they wouldnt have been able to do that if he held majority of shares.

He is the majority share holder, so therefore the other one too I guess.

OK, some points.

1. Its in the Sun.

2. If its from Parker, remember he gets much of his stuff from the interested party having a word in his ear. Maybe we've just seen a bit of kite-flying by Caisley? Some of what came out from him during the Burgess business seemed to be disingenuous at best.

3. Its in the Sun.

4. Caisley holds 26%, so can block a Special Resolution. The Board collectively control rather more than 50%, and so collectively they control the company. For the report to say Caisley, the largest individual shareholder, is the "majority shareholder is either an error or disingenuous bordering on untruth.

5. Its in the Sun.

6. Despite so much going tîts-up in the later years of his tenure, and the legacy that bequeathed his successors to sort out, for heaven's sake lets take nothing away from the outstanding progress the club made under his stewardship in the years leading up to all that. Without his vision and drive, we'd never have been in the position to have such a high place to fall from.

7. Its in the Sun.

8. the only reason we were able to continue at the level we did in the last years of Caisley's reign was because they spent the Odsal settlement money, meant to cover the period to 2019, at a truly alarming rate, living well beyond our means. Had something not been done, the club would have folded financially several years ago.

9. Its in the Sun.

10. Harrisgate did more damage to the club than almost anything else you can imagine. Whether Caisley regrets what many saw as his obsession with getting one over on Leeds (and they were just as bad!) who knows? But remember, the Tesco/Sterling Capitol stadium project falling through also did immense harm, especially to the club's potential to increase its corporate and sponsorship income. And it was hardly Caisley's fault that other clubs were bought by your Davys, McManuses, Caddicks, Morans, Wilkinsons, Lenaghans, Whelans, Hudgells etc of this world - all of whom seemed to have the wherewithall to pump usually millions into their club. Whether someone of such ilk might have bought into the Bulls had Caisley not been at the helm we will never know.

11. Its in the Sun.

12. As Sam says, diplomacy was not Caisley's strong point. History has maybe shown that, over time, you make more headway working with people than against them. Especially when you are up against salesmen-types who talk the talk rather than just say it how it is.

13. Its in the Sun.

I agree with these excellent points.

Much of causes of the slump (if not the debacle of the capitulations last season) can (I'd better say IMO) be attributed to the financial and academy pipeline situation when Caisley left office. The implications of those situations took a good time to fully manifest themselves. So the present board, whilst hardly totally blameless, catch the cräp for the situation they largely inherited, without yet getting the credit for the actions taken to redress the situation.

The history books will no doubt be somewhat kinder to most of Caisley's tenure than some are allowing on this thread, and also somewhat kinder to the present board than too many yet allow.

Good to see someone at least managed to sift out the real coded message from in amongst all the distractions and smokescreens...!

Is that based on beating Cas & Salford or your last 5 years' SL positions?

both plus the general improvement in squad and youth coming through.