If administrators are appointed, it will be the new BoD not the old.

And, as Northern Relic observes, not necessarily for just financial reasons.

Surely your ire should be directed at the new BoD should that transpire? Since you can have no idea whatsoever whether, left to their own devices, the previous BoD would have appointed or been able to carry on.

wonder what gives you that sneaky feeling? wouldnt be OP's history of starting rumours that turn out to have no substance would it? thomas cook and asotasi to name a couple

And that very over-zealous caveat outlines precisely as to how thoroughly misguided you have been over a period of months as to the current predicament.

As for your attempted pull-up of Maiselbugs' very logical and accurate observations of your fog-ridden deduction and "inside knowledge", what a dire repost and mitigation for your standpoint. The foot stamping "do not say this", "do not do that" is quite spectacular toy throwing. You are the very point of origin for deductions and assumptions. Your irony is quite beautiful.

Your defence of the previous BoD defies belief. Similarly your spurious claim to be self-aware as to your admittance of 'error' is equally fog-ridden. Camp Caisley have made very few public announcements and yet you have utilised your (some may say jaundiced) knowledge of all things legal to smokescreen some of us less learned with what the "actuality" is, when, on the contrary, it most certainly is not. You have concluded and deducted at every point in the last few months. For you to play Speaker of the Commons and Mr Objective when it now suits your narrative, is farcical.

Maiselbugs has simply tied you in knots as to your assumptions and deducations. You have bagged the current review team before you even know the outcome. And done so with high moral ground that would rival Everest. And that, more than anything, is quite ridiculous.

He has done no such thing. And I thought I made it clear that the tone of my response was merely to reflect his own. If my post is "dire", it speaks volumes for the style of he whose approach I merely emulated.

Your own bias has been and continues to be so totally extreme as to grant you no grounds for criticising the standpoint of others.

Whilst the defence is admirable, it is going down faster than the Concordia. The club mouthpiece is looking foolish once more yet just cannot accept it. It seems anyone who takes issue with this clown is "dishonest". Actually, they are just speaking the truth.

If its true feel very sorry for the fans that put money into the club a few weeks ago to try and save Bradford. This is the reason I wouldn't put any money in when Wakefield were in the same position.

OI YOU

Administrators!? What a load of , the truth is polar opposite - have patience people

Peter Hood said he would only call in the pledge if he was reasonably sure that the extra £500k would be raised. He made that statement knowing that there was a degree of hostility on the part of the major shareholders. He should only have made that statement and called in the pledge if he had good reason to believe that the major shareholders hostility would not be a barrier to new investment.

That was the reason why I pledged and it hasnt happened. It may turn out that he was justified at the time in making that statement and calling in the pledge. But until that becomes clear, my main gripe is with the old Board.

Whilst I don't give a rats ass about more infighting, could a mod please change the title of this thread to something more accurate, including the words rumour or allegedly at least? as its not true yet and just ed me off when I went online as I view this site for any news on this every day.

If its true tomorrow at 10 then fine, change it back no problem, but its going to p!ss me off every time I view the site until we know.

edit, vexed off...nice, first time I've seen that tool in action on my posts.

Indeed. I notice there is a thread on the Wakey forum stating the 'The Bulls site' is saying that administrators have been appointed.