There is always the possibility that IBM was close enough to the action to be aware for himself what was going on?

In what role?

He/She has a copy of private correspondence between two people. it follows that Incredibullman is either Peter Hood or Chris Caisley or they've been given the letter by either Peter Hood or Chris Caisley.

Assuming the letter is genuine, then unless there was an intermediate party involved the argument is irrefutable.

Or picked it up from the photocopier........accessed someone's computer......found it at the bottom of a pile of papers.....

Am I confused? Is the implication here that even though the letter clearly state that he doesn't want the club in administration, people still think that CC is somehow still plotting it all along, and the letter is part of an elaborate double bluff?

How does that work then?

It's how some have chosen to roll around these 'ere parts lately; primarily to mitigate their failing, misguided beliefs and also because they have been sold an absolute stinker of a sob story by the previous BoD. That they are unable to see the notion you outline is actually farcical, and essentially impractical, is indicative of their mis-comprehension as to the whole situation, and indeed that their "intelligence-led" approach is somewhat ironic.

Also duly noted Mr Hoods very appearance on these forums as a relatively new poster (another pseudonym to align with his strategically placed stooges).

I shall make little comment on the letter, other than to reiterate the bloody obvious; only somebody who would benefit in a public perception led environment would benefit from its very presence. Wouldn't they PH?

And anyway. Whether or not administration, as a means to secure full control, was his intent originally, I'd admit to being surprised and disappointed if that was his preferred option now. I really can't see what it would solve financially, and he'd be seen as the bad guy in the eyes of a lot of people. If he was ever motivated to gain victory over Hood (and I have no idea if he was, one way or the other) then indeed I fear it could prove to be something of a pyrrhic victory.

But is it not perfectly clear from the letter that administration was not his intent?
Why do people doubt it?

Because not everyone is naïve enough to believe that everything said in a formal legalistic business letter, containing both demands and a clear warning from one party to a commercial conflict to another as well as quite clearly seeking to establish that party's version of the timeline for the record, is to be taken at face value. I wish it was otherwise.

I have written, been party to and received enough of such letters over my too-many years to feel I can speak from some experience, unfortunately. Its all part of one big game, and almost everybody except bullies and the lawyers who make good money out of it (sorry FA...) hates it, in my experience.

I have to ask was the investor -communicating by email and suggesting to have 2.5 million inheritance if you reply with your details? Or suggesting some claim of needing to store some money till they arrive in the country as they have a lottery win but cant claim out of the country?
Desperate times an all..........

Martin, you regularly quote figures for the Harris settlement. I do not recognise those numbers relative to a specific number inadvertently indicated to us, which included the substantial legal fees. That's not to say that what we heard was any more accurate. There is no way I can see you can divine the numbers from the published accounts - have you gleaned some additional info?

The "Orford Settlement" was no such thing really, as I understand it. We owed him some image rights payments that - as with other players - he had agreed to defer until the tax situation was clarified. I believe that when he broke his contract the club sought to retain those monies in lieu of compensation. In the event it seems the club was unable to enforce that. Can't see what that has to do with the RFL loan, to be honest?

I really don't see that you can deduce these sort of numbers from the accounts - although I know you sure have have tried, to your credit. The biggest component anyway of accruals and deferred income is likely to be the following season's season ticket sales, and its nigh-on impossible to guess what they would be year on year?

The 2011 accounts will be the really interesting ones (if the club survives long enough to publish them...) since we should see the impact on creditors of the RFL loan (like you, I assume it started at the start of 2011 because of the RFL charge) and gain at least some idea of just why it was needed.

I'd just love to see the detailed internal balance sheets. And month by month. As I know you would! I think an awful lot of questions would be answered if we had that information in our possession.

Just to clarify a couple of things:
It is TOTALLY genuine.
It was wisest council not to respond.
CC had made his interest known to both the Club and RFL many weeks prior, that if the club ever went into admin he would be an iterested party in the aftermath.
The investor was interviewed face to face and checked out in great detail. Understand he was acting as a different individual with detailed knowledge of the said individual's finances.
He tabled £2.5 million over 3 years and was to be appointed Chairman with immediate effect.
Think that covers it

So really....
someone came in with an offer of £2.5 million over 3 years?
But they turned out to be a fake?
Really? Is that for real?

You couldn't make this up could you?

So the "plan" was a conman.

Great stuff, wonder when he appeared on the scene?

If people pledged money because this great plan was in place on the back of this conman then all pledgers have a right to be very ed off with the Hood & co.