Can they be libellous if they are true though?

Aye, lad.

Funny old world.

I would be gobsmacked if the directors had not got advice from a VAT expert on such an issue, in which case they surely would be looking at said experts professional indemnity policy. some real pot kettle stuff going on, Caisley a solicitor was responsible for Harrisgate, and should be aware that the only winners in a legal dispute however "good" your case are the solicitors as has been proved, and puts anything Hood has done into the shadows.

and as for Hood etc knowing the bank would be doing a serious review: I had the offer (that took five months to obtain) of a import loan facility based on 40 days repayment, however the bank had actually misinterpreted the period i needed, so I put it back to them that I needed 50 days to cover the import/deliver/invoice time, the invoice being factored (with them) for 85% of its value against cost of the stock at 40% so providing plenty of cover. They reviewed the whole deal and withdrew the offer. If I had known they were going to do that I would have air freighted the stuff in rather than shipped and stuck with the 40 days. One week I had a facility, was discussing the documentation etc needed for each importation, the next week nothing.

So I have great respect for the way Hood has stuck at it in what I know to be the worst financial environment for a long long time with no help from anybody other than the fans (and this last few weeks the players). If he has got us to the point of a new investor in the club then as far as I am concerned the ends justifies the means.

How does that work then?

The OP obviously has an agenda and yes the personal nature of the post could be libellous even if the facts are accurate.

However sometimes the finding out of facts outweigh the agenda/overall message and considering the specific nature of the key points in the OP's post I'm surprised more of you are not concerned with the content rather than the motive.

The complete lack of transparency astounds me considering the board are in the process of handling £500k of your money. If the above is true then it must cast a shadow over the viability of the current administration even with the monies raised already.

A genuine question because I'm curious, has anyone considered that going into administration might just be the best situation for the long term future of the club ? Would the RFL really withdraw the SL license ?

Spot on.

They must be rubbing their hands in glee to be blessed with such a subservient fan-base at a time like this.

I think it's because GB has posted it that some aren't more concerned. He's been on the wind up more often than not and has the knack of rubbing folk up the wrong way.

I've no real idea what's going on behind the scenes, nor am I likely to, I would like to know but I think fans are uncomfortable being used by people with an agenda like the OP.

If it was a post made in good faith I maybe would think differently.

As for being subservient I'm not sure that's what's going on. Most supporters are getting behind the club 100% but still have serious reservations about the Directors.

What he said.

This has got to be the biggest extrapolation of zero evidence I've ever seen. He's said something outrageous and therefore he's someone in the know, wtf? And now, with zero evidence to back anything up, its up to the accused to prove he's wrong. This is brilliant.

Just for the record, I believe Peter Hood is a witch and demand that he comes on here and proves that he isn't. No, no its not for me to prove he is a witch but its vital, in the interests of truth and transparacy, for him to prove that he isn't. And if he has the gall to not come on here and answer this important question, then clearly - he is a witch.

You may think I'm nuts but maybe I know something you don't....

Hear! hear!

And you've established all this without knowing who he is, what duties he held or undertakings he made, where he got the information from, whether there's a word of truth in his claims, or what his motives are other than informing people who are collectively being asked for 500k -£1million?

Good luck in court.

I've argued that the best way of dealing with the awful mess both with the board of directors and shareholding which hates each other is to enter administration. I've stated for years that where we are now is an inevitable consequence of a dysfunctional club and whilst a fearful prospect, the process of adminstration is the only way to scourge the club of the two warring factions, both of whom have put themselves before the club and its fans IMO.

I had thought the same myself.

In fact, I might have a go at my own appeal, on the premise that I'll shed light on things later.

I've seen the latest accounts, but to be honest, you can't draw any conclusions from them as to the specifics of the debt.

Not posted for ages due to too many posters full of dunga. But it's becoming crystal clear that Hood's propaganda machine is in full swing through certain posters who seem to believe everything that he says.

You have. And it would be. Concur on both points.

Where you and I seem to disagree is about the consequences of administration relative to the benefits the scourging would bring. I fear the worst, and also am strongly opposed to businesses going bust, taking the taxpayer and other (often small, local) creditors for a load of money - then rising from the ashes as if everything was right with the world. Its not IMO - its morally wrong and tantamount to theft. I accept though not that many share that second POV, but I feel strongly about it and, being a stubborn sod, I remain unmoved about trying to avoid administration if at all possible.

Just a bit surprised why you came out in support of Caisley ahead of administration the other day? Unless you share my view that Caisley would probably put it into administration anyway?