Of course. I always forget that there will be points deduction.

I really hope that if CC takes the club into administration that there is a 3rd party investor who is willing to gazump an attempted pre pack leaving CC, Hood et al with nothing. Schadenfreude. That'll teach them to use our club to score cheap points off each other.

Caisley . Stop trying PR smear campaigns and fix this. You wanted the chance to be the saviour- do it!

I wondering this as well

Not really, though. Had he accepted the whole lot without a fight, he would almost vertainly have been in breach of his fiduciary and other responsibilities as a director, quite apart from taking a decision that would have led to immediate insolvency and therefore loss to creditors. The liquidator, funded no doubt by the Creditors' Committee led by Council and HMRC, could have taken him and the rest of the board (remember...we had Mr Agar, Mr Bates, Mr Coulby there who collectivley owned far more shares than he did) to the cleaners. IMO.

I agree with you that we need some means of having a clear-out and starting again in terms of ownership. Preferably not involving ANY of the present lot, but no chance of that I fear.

Opinion is fine. Stating someone is lying without proof (even if maybe they were) is potentially defamatory and actionable.

Would admin mean that all current player contracts are null and void? If so, these could all be re-negotiated with more favourable terms for the club rather than the player...... You could say it is a way of dealing with the dead wood/expensive salaries that Hood endorsed – reputedily Platt/Sykes/Scruton if the rumours are correct. Of course the players don’t have to sign on but where exactly would 30 players go at short notice... a few cherries would be picked, the others its either like it and sign or no money for you..... I’m sure the same logic can be applied to all sorts of miscellaneous contracts currently in place.....

Aha!!

There you have it all.

My opinion? FWIW, and the view I formed at the time, was:

1 - £500k to replace the credit lines the club believed (whether with justification or otherwise is academic) they had in place, to save the club from immediate insolvency. That was what the Pledge was for.

2 - £500k (or whatever) shortfall PER ANNUM income vs expenditure. I took it, from everything I heard and deduced, that the avenues the club were pursuiing were to try and plug the INCOME gap EACH YEAR. Since - as you rightly observe - anything esle just did not make sense.

This of course all presupposes that the BoD knew what they were doing and understood the realities of the situation. At the time, I believed that they did. As it is, nothing would surprise me now!

As I said I expected (although could hope otherwise) right from the start.

Hole Theory!
You have this Hole (aka Financial loss) which just cannot be paid off or written off, but is manageable as long as you can keep forwarding on to the following years books, also hoping that some extraordinary sponsorship or White Knight appears, to fill in said Hole. The safety mechanism to cope with this is the standard business Bank overdraft, if said safety mechanism is suddenly withdrawn, that manageable Hole now becomes a fiscal nightmare leaving the Club in a quandry with a Hole that needs to be filled and quickly, Two courses of action are available go into Administration or go cap in hand to the Fans and RL Community. To go straight into administration would have killed the Club, asking for the money upfront should give them the breathing space they needed. Then the originator of said Hole comes back and behaves unprofessionally cause he wants his "toy"back. Caisley is walking a fine line now, as taking the Club into an unnecessary Administration could have repercussions down the line!

I'll wait to hear from them then. At least it would be a chance to talk to someone at the club.

But to save any issues, I withdraw my comments. The club have never, ever lied to us, not ever, not once. Not even a little bit.

Liar.

Wouldn't anyone seriously interested in buying the club need to know that a significant shareholder would be likely to accept the offer? Or could the previous Board have sold the club without the consent of the shareholders?

When Hood made his statement about only accepting the fans money if he was very confident that he could raise the extra £500k, I took that to mean that he also believed that he had the backing of the shareholders. Since it would have been a meaningless statement otherwise. That's why I pledged.

The Board could not have sold the club. That would have required the shareholders to sell their shares to the prospective buyer. The board only held c.25% of the shares, so they could not themselves sell control to another party.

Regrding having the backing of other shareholders, he only needed to know he had the backing of 50% of the shareholding. Doubtless he knew he could NOT count on Caisley's backing, but - like you -I assumed he was happy he could continue to count on the backing of other former directors sufficient to give him at least 50% support. Seeing Roland Agar change sides (Coulby had previously sold nearly all his holding to Bennett and Hood...) was therefore quite a shock. I too had already pledged by then.

Isn't any company's board in a de facto position of having the backing of the shareholders, until a shareholders' meeting decides otherwise?

I appreciate that there are circumstances where the shareholders would need to give specific permissions and indeed occasions when the shareholders feel the need to reign in the directors. Again I don't know, but suspect, any action which is likely to dilute the shareholdings would need a special meeting (EGM?) but the pledge didn't offer the pledgees (ie. us) any holding in the club at all, so I'd expect it was within their powers.

I cant really understand then why he took the fans money. If he wasnt sure that he had the backing of the shareholders to make a deal then he would have been better to have walked away at that point.