Your own "experience" is, by definition of your showboating on behalf of the previous board and delusional subsequent offerings, largely jaundiced. You have been highly consistent in regurgitating the off-record party line and have continually been sold an absolute stinker. Your posts reaffirm that, continually.

I firmly understand that as a frequent, and some may so, excessive, poster on these boards, you have aimed to "rule" (since that is clearly the objective) by mixing half truths and untruths with elements of legalities and statutory statements.

I equally understand that you must be even more disappointed you have been fed a large number of blatant lies by the previous board, hence the need to backtrack and throw in token gesture offerings as to Hood et al being "naive" whilst been highly vociferous and vitriolic in your damnation of a review team you haven't even heard from yet.

To attempt your sniper rifle retorts at any poster who challenges your misguided beliefs, is poor form and continues to illustrate your heightened narcissism.

Thankfully, a number of posters are beginning to see through your misguidings and firmly challenged you; indeed embarrassed some of your myopic nonsense.

The point remains this; the debt level is far greater than you or most, realise and largely generated by the previous misfiring board. Whatever I write or you write doesn't change that or mitigate anybody's stance. Rather just leave those in place at the moment to do what they need to do. It's that simple.

Alternatively, you could offer your insightful services to the incumbent team?

And in all of that diatribe, in which you resort to personal attacks so one can only conclude you have little of substance to contribute, you have not in any way refuted my allegation.

The one statement of substance you make - about the "debt level" - would appear anyway to have been contradicted by the recent statements from both Coulby and Hood. The only "debts" I saw either refer to were this "six figure loan" that Coulby never expanded upon and Hood maintains was a £110k advance of Sky money, and the £250k Lease sale output tax liability. And, as regards the latter, since you accuse me of being a sycophant to the former board, I would refer you to my repeated (and unsatisfied) questions about the "black hole" that I worked out must be there and especially over VAT that was never (IMO) the club's to use and spend in the first place.

Are you SO concerned that people are seeking to understand and question what is happening, and what has happened? Why is it OK for you to engage in the activity that you seek to deride and attack others for doing, if they do not support your stance? I seek to interpret and comment on the information that is available. That is all. Why should that seemingly concern you so much that you resort to personal attacks and derision? Are you scared I might just hit close to the truth from time to time?

As for "offering my services", I have done precisely that in the past. Indeed, it has been regularly commented about on here that there are numerous people who have said they would willingly provide voluntary help to the club in their own fields of specialisation. Yet, for all the years I can remember, and under whatever administration, the club has shown pretty well no appetite for any such help - unless it came with a hard cash benefit. They have always seemed scared to death of any supporter involvement. Is it likely that the latest incarnation will be any more keen to tap into a pool of talent that may be available?

I believe the majority of posters on this forum actually see through YOU, to be honest. That has certainly been my experience from talking to people.

Bless, I can see you are a little perturbed by your use of capital letters. How endearing.

Your standpoint is based on jaundiced feeding from former directors and senior staff at the club; your views are hardly impartial and based on your deductions.

Again, you throw in semantics aligned with what a club/business statutory offerings may be, when in reality, it is simply your interpretation and not what unquestionably needs to happen as you so strongly suggest. Some would say, you deceive people with partial truths. Rarely have you 'hit' any truths on here.

The only person contradicting the level of debt, is Peter Hood. Oh and you. Understandably. Him because he was a contributing element and you, because he told you information to the contrary and, you feel a little bit let down.

As for your offer of help. Admirable. And I'm sure if you contact Stephem Coulby he may actually provide you with a listening ear. But then that wouldn't suit your hopscotching mandate on here (which you seemingly place great value in).

Interestingly, on the contrary, a growing number of posters are actually challenging your views, because, without doubt, they are neither based on fact and indeed have been proven to be wildly inaccurate. Open debate is essential to the success moving forward, what isn't needed, is your attempts at being a self appointed CEO of the Supporters.

As Coulby said, the review will explain in detail the problems that have been identified and more importantly, the plan moving forward. And that more than anything, we will all look forward to I'm sure.

Boring!!!

Just what I was going to post!! It was going through my mind whilst reading how 'boring' this is becoming and you beat me to it

People are right to challenge Adey - he is one of only a handful offering anything constructive to the debate. I notice that all you have managed to do is to seek to destruct a line of argument without offering anything constructive - any idiot can do that and it is a long way from open debate.

Before you go slagging off other members of the board, let's see what you have to offer, other than insults.

As for Adey, I have read nearly all of his posts with interest (I have read some of the more financial ones with little interest). I can see nothing in any of them where he is offering anything other than his view - doesn't look to me that he is trying to represent anybody other than himself.

Should you feel the urge, by all means feel free to trawl through my posts. I would highlight that I revealed some months ago the situation regarding the VAT bill (of which their are further revelations) along with the RFL loan (which wasn't a SKY money advance, far from it).

Similarly, I will question the views of those who I believe to be contributing absolute untruths if I deem it necessary and indeed contributes to debate. I don't need a blessing or pathway to make that deduction.

Given that Coulby cannot differentiate between a projection and a budget, or a drawdown and a loan, and seems to know nothing of the mechanics of cash flow management, I certainly look forward, with great trepidation, to his plan.

Pinko, preparing profit and loss accounts is a much simpler ballgame than financial management of a business. Reading between the lines Hood and Bennett have in the circumstances managed the cash flow well. The problem in the last few years is that there has been no reserves (other than players to sell) to deal with any unexpected payments/outflows. As they say, profit is an opinion, cash flow is a fact. Which also points to a degree of inconsistency in Hoods defence: he states that the profit for 2011 was £250K, but if that is so then that should have turned up as cash, and yet the pledge and more sponsorship funds are required, despite that profit. I suspect he is getting that figure into the public domain before history is re-written by the victors. And it also points to some inconsistency somewhere in all the figures, or as Adey calls it, the black hole.

The net result of Coulby and Hoods public debate is as Juliebull says, boring, because if that is the worst that Coulby can rake up, then the bulls must be far better off than a lot of other businesses that quite sensibly get on with dealing with their problems quietly.

Given Coubly's attempt to deflect Peter Hood's rebuttal in the T&A, he mentions that they're only looking at the last 2 years. So sorry Mr Coubly, but you need to go back to when the previous chairman stepped down in order to give a full and frank account of how the BoD under Hood have performed.

As they're not doing that, they are IMO, wasting everyone's time in an attempt to get people onside for when they go "We're all doomed!! Doomed I tell ya!!! Only administration can save us now!!!!!" Which is what has been coming since Caisley manoeuvred himself and his cronies back into power.

Please read the thread and you will see i have posted.

Yes Roofaldo, and its interesting to see that Coulby is much more circumspect in his comments, generalisations that Hood cannot shoot down. I would hope he means the last two years in detail, previous years less detail. And looking at the tone of his comments, what chance now that the club made a profit of £250k in 2011?

GB, just a suggestion, your contributions seem to get obscured by the volume of your mainly argumentum ad hominem postings, balance the two up and perhaps your star will shine a bit brighter.

I speculate Coulby said two years because he ceased to be a director in August 2010. Up to then, of course, he will or should have been fully aware of the situation. He sold most of his shareholding to either Hood or Bennett in 2011 IIRC.

All a matter of public record, incidentally.

Point taken, especially since you tend to make more logical and objective points than some. However, when I read (with increasing frequency) genuine inaccuracies, it is worth addressing, with a little reality. It may not prove popular in this forum colosseum, the rhetoric alone suggests so, but I'll live with that. I've no truc with disagreements or contrary opinion, it's the very essence of a debate; what concerns me as I say, are absolute untruths.

As for Hood and Coulby, stepping off the PR gas, might be a cute way forward; fans have little desire to see the showboating, just action.