Quote: mat "wording certainly sounds pretty genuine. Not sure what anyone gains by leaking it now though.'"
Pretty explosive stuff indeed.
If it's not genuine, its one hell of a good fake. And of course Hood and Bennett could challenge it. Or of course it could be an "amended" version of the original - although again that would leave them open to challenge by Hood and Bennett.
I am therefore minded to treat it as genuine, albeit with considerable caution. The language certainly sounds like the man, but there are one or two bits that make me wonder - would a lawyer write "2" rather than "two", for example? I would very much like to know the date though. The reference to "next Tuesday" suggests it was the week before Easter, the same week that CC made his public statement. That would make sense.
IF it is genuine, that then leads us to why leak it now?
The content is, in my view, not particularly inconsistent with what we either already knew or some of us at least had been told, albeit the emphasis is quite different. The one significant point of variance I can see is the following
"From your recent media comments it is reasonable to assume that you have received no tangible interest from the latter."[/i
That, I note, is a presumption and not a statement of fact. Having been told, face to face, that there were three separate options being pursued, all aimed at avoiding the need for administration, we have a clear difference between the "letter"'s presumption and something we were specifically told (as were others). At this stage, I can add nothing more to that, other than if the directors called the pledges in without reasonable expectation of avoiding administration - which I take as meaning without reasonable expectation of ongoing funding) then they were reckless fools. Or worse - as Maislebugs conjectures. I suspect we will never get to know the truth of it.
I am quite sure that Hood had administrators lined up for the week after Easter -not from what anyone at the club told me, but even so. And, assuming that we were being told the truth about how imminent the threat was (and this "letter" surely confirms that one and for all?" he would have HAD to have had, to avoid trading whilst insolvent. So that part rings very true to me.
That comment about £600k "causing" him to reflect has again led to a supposition in the letter, which on the face of it is understandable. Except of course we know that hood DID call in the pledges and did NOT appoint, therefore one must assume that £500k WAS enough to stave off the immediate threat and therefore the supposition was incorrect? But that is itself a supposition! And does not really tell us much. What an unholy mess.
Here it gets interesting again[i"I pointed out that according to my information, even if you were to raise £1m by the end of April the Company would still suffer substantial month on month losses going forward. You agreed and said there would have to be significant expenditure cuts."[/i
I note "according to my information", so that is not necessarily fact. Nevertheless, I am sure it IS correct - just the scale of the losses is never made clear. It has been obvious for ages that expenditure in the current economic situation has been exceeding income, and no amount of one-off funding fixes that. All that WOULD fix it is either new ongoing income streams - which the letter presumes to be ruled out, but we were assured WAS very much the plan (so you takes your choice there) or cost reductions - which could only really come from the playing staff budget.
Otherwise, it all rings pretty much what I would have expected to be honest - including the threat to hold Hood and Bennett personally responsible - I have been raising that issue for weeks now. If Hood was not a frightened man, he probably should have been - damned whatever he did.
A big question I guess is was the wording of the letter intended to future-proof it against whatever might subsequently happen? After all, as has been pointed out there is no assurance of funding or avoidance of administration from Mr Caisley either, just a demand (as a majority of the shareholders were perfectly entitled to make) for Hood and Bennett to step aside so they could see if they could do any better.
Leaking it NOW could be to head off the reaction if they now decide to appoint administrators – they can say that it was never their intention but the actions of the previous board left them no choice. And there is no way of knowing now proving whether that statement would be genuine or otherwise. The wording of the letter leaves them all avenues open. And Hood and Bennett look to have got themselves into a very exposed position.
If this letter IS genuine, then for me the timing is crucial, in all sorts of ways. If it was received AFTER the meeting a group of us had with the board the week before Easter, then it fits in with the Thursday-before-Easter announcement from CC through the T&A. If it was received BEFORE, then I would have a major issue indeed with Mr Hood & Mr Bennett.
But, if it IS genuine, then why did Hood and Bennett not call in the pledges (to stave off administration, as they were obviously sure it would and therefore would presumably be acting in the best interests of the company) and then immediately stand down as a majority of the owners of the business demanded? Instead of hanging on for several weeks leaving everything seemingly in limbo? There seems to be a big case to answer there.
Again, always assuming the letter is genuine in all respects.
What a hell of a way to own and run a business.
And yes, its all so bloody impossible that it must be true.