we lost the likes of Skerrett because other clubs with rich benefactors wanted to offer them more.
And who came along and took us out of that? Christopher Caisley! Ultimately after a 20 year journey from the point of Skerrett leaving for Wigan, we are left in a very similar situation. Rebranding, followed by massive success followed by a realisation that it wasn't sustainable.

Our initial success in the SL era was down to selling our best player in Newlove, as that enabled us to build a squad. Nickle, Dwyer, loughlin, lowes, McNamara and spruce all came in on the back of that deal! So perhaps being a selling club can work? What we need is a scouting system that identifies the best players for the budget we have available.

What is clear is that as a club there is a finite amount of fans willing to follow the club thru thick and thin. And that budgeting for success on the field can and will lead to massive problems if you don't get that success. Even Wigan have struggled with this.

Getting through to may is crucial, but planning for the future is more so!

Having said all this, would we swap financial stability for any if our titles won?

Sorry but there's no evidence to suggest Caisley's intervention 'was timed to perfection if you were looking to sabotage the pledge'.

Depends what you mean by "sustainable".

If you mean that the success was not sustainable - it never is. A team can have a short time, or an extended time, in the top echelons but sooner or later it will fall from those heights. 'Twas ever thus and always will be.

If you mean financially sustainable. I have said many times that in my view, if we had not spent millions on buying Harris, signing on fees, agent's fees, lawyers fees and compensation to Leeds, then we would be in a reasonable enough financial situation. I have seen nothing to contradict this view, and nor has a single person argued against it.

I mean, just the compo itself. Of course, nobody knows how much it is, but the £600,000 was paid in cold hard cash (a pure guess on my part that figure) and if we instead had it in the bank now, would you think we would have a problem? What if you add back in all the legal costs too?



Trading Newlove didn't in any way shape or form make us a selling club! He had taken his bat home and was never going to play a decent game for us again so it made perfect sense to cash in. However we did not cash in, which is what "selling clubs" do. Because they need the money. We did not cash in. We used the money to - as you rightly point out - build a cracking squad with some very shrewd acquisitions and a couple of top class ones.

Ultimately, we'd have spent the extra cash on players wouldn't we? Wod that have given us success under McNamara? Who knows.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that we can look back at ifs and buts all the wy back to 1907, but what is important is getting on the right track now. Any thoughts of success on the pitch in the short term need to be replaced with how we make the club financially viable. This may not be in its current form, at it's current home or in its current division. What we need to do is ensure that if we do survive the next weeks and months, we have a proper long term plan that is realistic.

I've read on here that someone thinks that if season ticket prices go to £200 w wil still sell 10,000! Dream on! We need to get real and make sure whatever we have is built on solid foundations, not guesswork or projections!

Ultimately, we'd have spent the extra cash on players wouldn't we? Wod that have given us success under McNamara? Who knows.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that we can look back at ifs and buts all the wy back to 1907, but what is important is getting on the right track now. Any thoughts of success on the pitch in the short term need to be replaced with how we make the club financially viable. This may not be in its current form, at it's current home or in its current division. What we need to do is ensure that if we do survive the next weeks and months, we have a proper long term plan that is realistic.

I've read on here that someone thinks that if season ticket prices go to £200 w wil still sell 10,000! Dream on! We need to get real and make sure whatever we have is built on solid foundations, not guesswork or projections!

And there is no evidence it was not.

I think most people are intelligent enough to recognise the timing for what it was, don't you?

After all, if he had the interest of the club at heart he could have waited until the closing date?

And then promised that he would fund the shortfall if, because of his intervention, the board was unable to call in the pledges.

Except that way the club would not have gone into administration, would it?

You've accused him of timing his intervention to sabotage the pledge, also suggesting he doesn't have the interests of the club at heart. I don't know but,

Caisley didn't announce the pledge.

He didn't announce friday at 5pm as the deadline.

He didn't announce Leeds at home as possibly our last game.

He didn't tell us we would have to pay immediately on saturday morning.

As a major shareholder he was under a huge repsonsibility to act and whther you're a fan of his or not, or believe that his actions are welcome or not, to suggest he has set the agenda or the timing of such doesn't make sense.

They have persistently briefed against him. He has acted spitefully against them.

He believes it is in the best interest of the club if Hood is removed and his timing will chime with the fact that a majority of shareholders now agree with him. I would prefer a third party to move but in the absence of one Chris Caisley has a duty to act.

I think you're being used again.

Just as an extra, I've heard from a decent source that the Andy Wilson rumour of Bateman to Wire is from a telephone interview with Peter Hood himself.

Irrelevant to whether Caisley put the spoke in or not and at a damaging time or not, I would not have pledged if Caisley had being in charge. Almost certainly the Rugby league fans would not have got behind the cause neither. The guy is just far too confrontational IMO.

I will thank you to credit me with a bit more intelligence and free will than that.

Even if I was Caisley's biggest supporter, it would still be very plain to me regarding the timing.

If I thought Caisley was thinking pimarily of what was in the best interests of the club (he never gave a stuff for the fans) then I would be far less hostile.

But we saw where his Ahab-like obsession with getting one over on Hetherington got us? And it looks to me he is trying to do the same on Hood. Looks like revenge to me.

And it is HE that is seeking to use the fans, IMO.

I don't see how he's using the fans any more than Peter Hood. There are many elements to saving this club but getting rid of this board is number 1 on the list. I'd prefer a third party but according to you, there isn't one and until thursday the only other option was administration.

If the three choices (and I don't know this) Hood, Caisley or liquidation, I'd choose Chris Caisley everyday of the week.

Your assesment of Caisley is wholly unbalanced.

In Chris' admittedly chequered record there are great successes. The reason the club had the residual loyalty and support to make this pledge successful is in large part because of what Chris Caisley did in the 1990s when he effectively turned a dour club into the powerhouse of British rugby league. It is our 'Revie' era and the fanbase (try as Hood might to erode it) exists because of it.

In the aftermath of the great Wigan side of the 80s and 90s the club went bust and lost Central Park. Nevertheless, those sides are still celebrated both by the club and its supporters. Starngley, we're not allowed that pleasure without being lectured that our success was built on unsustainable debt, as if this was a unique fraud committed by an evil meglamaniac.

You know as well as I do that the club and its press office have mounted an effective campaign to blacken Caisley's record and his name. This is not first and foremost a defence of Caisley. It is more a condemnation of those who have used his failings to explain and excuse their own. If he is arrogant, then Hood and his board are submissive, if Caisley is dishonest then they are doubly so.

Maislebugs. Could not agree more!!!!!

If we do survive we face a painful couple of years. A new investor might plug some of the £500k hole, but there's still the problem of our ongoing losses, reportedly £100k per month. And there's the need to wean fans off the cheap season tickets. The current model just isnt viable.

There's not going to be any weaning. It's just going to be back to "normal" pricing structures for Season tickets come Sept. They may try and pitch just below "average" pricing of the other clubs but that will be the only concession on pricing structure.

As a one-off, the first pledge was great marketing and really picked up off-field enthusiasm. It wasn't matched on-field. That kinda screwed us. It forced a second pledge was wasn't really (with hindsight) viable.

There may be many elements. How can anyone (in camp Caisley, camp Hood or on the fence) think that the most important is not getting the cash in? Regardless of who the board is, we need the cash to survive in the short term. Arguably, we may need a change on the board to survive in the long term, but without the cash we may not have a long term to argue over.

If you think Caisley is the best option, its likely he'll 'save' us from administration, and expect all to be forgiven over the Harris saga. He may come out and admit he made mistakes , but he won't take long till he's back to his usual arrogant self. Don't think Hood or Caisley are great options at chairman anymore, and regardless of lies they have BOTH told, I know which one I believe has the clubs best interests at heart rather than a vendetta/agenda/revenge whatever you want to call it.