I don't know whether or not the letter is genuine. The only point I would make is that when one party to a dispute chooses to put something in writing, it is entirely natural that they do so in a way that supports their position rather than necessarily giving a balanced picture.

Surely someone can see if this is genuine?

Its in the interests of the current board to confirm its authenticity isnt it?

or in Hood and Bennett's interests to deny its authenticity?

This is further confirmation (if true) that Hood and Bennett were being dishonest during the pledge for survival period. It then casts doubts over their honesty in the last few years.

If this is true, then what we need to do is ensure that we all get behind the current board 100%!

But thats if it is true!

In what way does it? And see Cibaman's comments, with which I fully concur.

Assuming the poster is who I believe him to be, I am working on the assumption that it is indeed genuine. And (as I said earlier), and given it was (presumably) written by an experience lawyer as a fundamental part of a commercial and corporate governance dispute and therefore by definition presents one side and one interpretation of the argument, it held few surprises IMO. The key points where I suspect people may point to "evidence of dishonesty" are actually only suppositions by the writer, as I pointed out, and one at least of those was proved by events to be an incorrect supposition. We none of us know for certain just how close to - or far away from - the statements and suppositions in the letter are to the truth, so (as I said earlier) I really can't see how one can form a cast-iron judgment based on it.

Regardless, though, at present we only have one BoD, and so they are the only game in town right now. I suggest its far too early to decide whether to support them or question them - since we have not yet seen anything from them to either support or question?

Agree with Adey's points above.

With regard to the board, as a supporter of the club I've always supported the 'current' board and will continue to do so, even if part of the support is to ask questions of it from time to time. As is so rightly said above the present 'current' board hasn't done, or said, anything to question as of now. Personally I wish they'd get on with it....

I find it difficult to believe that this letter is gaining so much attention...This is the internet, accessible by hundreds of millions of people daily, some of whom are intent on causing mischief to anyone for whatever reason!

(Do you guys fall for the better phishing attacks?)

The facts remain that CC and his side now occupy the bridge and are preparing to give us their considered opinion on what is the best course of action for the club. Yes, the letter could be genuine but we'll never really know. And, besides, even if it is, then (as some have said) it could just be a play in a game of propaganda.

I'll leave you to your supposition. Personally I'm waiting for the actual announcement as there's nothing I/we can do in the meantime other than whip ourselves into a frenzy

You are quite entitled to express your opinion. Doesn't mean everyone will agree with it.

But what makes you so sure that people involved in the decision process (or whatever is going on) don't read this multi-accessible internet to get an idea of what fans are thinking? In reaching their decisions?

I'm sure they do and maybe they'll even make the same quality decisions that the Argentinian gov't did when listening to the press in the run up to the Falklands war. And, btw, I respect your right to an opinion and even to having fun, or whatever, at this hobby. Just, on this occasion, I felt the urge to say something if that's ok with you?

I think if the "Board" look at this board they will see as wide a range of conflicting ideas and hand-bagging as they seem to have at their meetings.
The difference being contributors here are willing to share their ideas.

I think if the "Board" look at this board they will see as wide a range of conflicting ideas and hand-bagging as they seem to have at their meetings.
The difference being contributors here are willing to share their ideas.

The majority of boards at the majority of sporting clubs may well read the internet to get an idea of what fans are thinking.

Only very, very rarely to they take any notice of what the fans want, though. I would be very surprised if this were on of those occasions.

Absolutely. And that was not what I was getting at. The last thing I expect the board - any board - to do is put the fans first. Indeed, I was having just this discussion this afternoon with a colleague regarding Leeds United, and what is currently going on there (and has been for the last few years).

What I had more in mind was them maybe gaining some awareness of what the fans would NOT want and might rally against, or at least how they might react to something if it happened. An example might be the fans' reaction to the prospect of administration, and who they would seek to blame?

Which brings us back to why the letter was posted on here, out of the blue - and I remain pretty convinced it IS likely to be genuine - and what the poster sought to achieve? In the absence of any guidance from the poster, I can only deduce that it was to sound out reaction and maybe seek to influence the opinions of those who have had reservations about the intentions of the incoming administration? Something we see all the time in politics, or course - even Argentinian. And fair enough if so. But that can only be pure speculation, until or unless the poster chooses to add some more explanation.

Just nicely patronising I thought. Must be Kaiser.

You can almost hear him speak as you read it.

I suppose also we cannot rule out the possibility that its based on a genuine letter but has been edited to change some of the meaning.