I suspect it was because Caisley intervened at the absolute critical time, saying his cabal were going to sack the board.

Whatever outside investors the old board may have been lining up (and we will never know now if and to what extent they might have succeeded or whether it was all the bollox some argue and the old board really WAS as hopeless as they assert) will obviously have got cold feet over that, so how could the old board carry on in such circumstances?

As I keep saying, only Caisley (and maybe some others of his cabal) will know whether his intervention, and at the time when it suddenly looked like the pledge target might be met, was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the pledge and undermine the old board, or was just a very unfortunate coincidence. Doubtless Caisley's Beard will appear now to deride any suggestion it might have been the former. But the result was that the old board had no incentive to carry on fundraising and every legal liability reason to stop, IMO. It seems increasingly clear to me now that administration was inevitable once Caisley intervened.

One day, someone will explain to me why Caisley insisted on removing Hood And Bennett. Why did he not just convene an EGM to have several of his cabal appointed as directors, so they could outvote Hood and Bennett? And then they would all be in it together trying to sort the mess out, with collective responsibility. And that could all have been sold, to investors especially, as a deliberate strengthening of the board to collectively resolve the situation.

Instead, the Caisley camp - regardless of whether they felt justified by the situation - succeeded admirably in telegraphing to all the world that it was a house divided and at war with itself. Who would invest, or continue fundraising, in such a business?

If the intent of the intervention was not to stymie the previous board's plans, utterly and completely and at a stroke, then it nevertheless seems to have resulted in just that IMO. Which to me is a pretty powerful possible explanation for why the fundraising stopped?

Lets be honest here, Peter Hood and Andrew Bennett never at any time had any investment lined up and were never going to get any in the future. It's all well Peter shouting about advanced negotiations with Chinese Billionaires and having solar panels installed at Odsal but he's had plenty of time to get it sorted naff all has ever happened.

Well in your opinion. The Chinese businessmen had definitely attended games in the company of Bennett and Hood. Whether they were close to coming on board only they will know.

Absolutely correct apart from the 'naff all has ever happened'. Some things did happen; our team became embarrassing to watch, the support pleaded with the BOD to replace the coach, the support were ignored and stopped paying to watch, all forms of revenue including sponsorship, corporate, season tickets, merchandise collapsed as the entire support base, with the exception of a few on this board realised that the people running the club were inept and that supporting them in any way, merely prolonged the agony and brought ever closer what we are now facing.

I do not like the implication on previous board - the current one with its hidden accomplice have done f all when it mattered too - because this outcome was there desired aim. for me coulby and agar have done nothing but bury their heads since been in charge with caisley like a loose forward hiding behind them but listening with intent and pointing fingers. caisley,hood, agar and coulby can all rot on an island for all i care - bennet has at least paid to go to games since his leaving

No, we know they were never close, other wise if they were then they would have been on board by now.

Looking on from the outside, and without all the detailed knowledge of the situation some here have, I'd say that it looks like the old board were either incompetent, liars, or both, whilst the new board were headed by a man who was only ever interested in getting one over the old chairman and satisfying his ego in the process.

I sincerely hope that out of this catastrophe can come a stronger Bulls club who will be competitive in SL again sooner rather than later. Good luck guys, you will probably need it.

Why should Wire pay £x for Bateman now? If the Bulls do go into administration won't the players become free agents and then they can get him for free.

We know no such thing. That is false logic. There are any number of conclusions you can draw, of which that is but one. I could give you a dozen other conclusions. And all thirteen could still be wrong.

Indeed, how do you know they are not one of those investments the new board claims to have already secured? They DID admit that they were looking to resurrect the potential funding the old board was pursuing, which effectively confirmed that they accepted te old board WAS pursuing realistic opportunities?

Incidentally, I am more and more convinced that the old board was intending to sell Bateman to help plug the gap, so if he ends up having to be sold as part of whatever phoenix may arise, totally gutted or not, that is one thing I would not be looking to pin on Caisley & co. Neither will the inevitable return to normal season ticket pricing - ANY board would have had to do that.

What a load of tosh. I get your line though; Caisley says Hood & Co. have to go because otherwise the Bulls are doomed. Hood & Co. go - but the Bulls are still doomed. Hood & Co. say they believed they had a shout of getting out of it (which we will never now know) but whether they did or they did not, it looks 99% certain that the effect of calling the EGM and removing Hood & Co. has led directly to us being on the brink of the drop.

Coulby was parachuted in with the caravan of advisers and analysts, and after a period of virtual silence, we are told that the reason the Bulls are very likely to go into administration on Tuesday is because the new board cannot find anyone who is prepared to invest in the club to the sufficient tune. This is the NEW board that cannot find anyone to invest. Not the old board, we'll never know if their plan whatever it was would have worked but they could not have done any worse than where we are now.

But if you want to believe the line that we're going down, but it's all the previous lots fault and nowt to do with those who felt it necessary to sack the board and ride in "to save the club", you go right ahead.

The conflating of supporting the club in any way with a view that the board was not inept is your biggest clanger, though. The truth is, the majority supported (and support) THEIR CLUB, not the Board. The truth is, knowing the present board had, by whatever means arrived at a point where if we did not raise £1/2m we would be closed down, nevrtheles pledged and paid their pledges, to keep their club going in the short term. Every person who paid and that is I think the substantial majority of the regular fans therefore DID support the Board, in that specific way, but you fail to see that a person could even believe the Board were completely useless etc yet still support it, as being better or at least no worse than any feasible alternative. But that is largely what happened.

What it boils down to is the new board in effect say that they cannot run the business on an even keel unless somebody gives them a load of money. A million for this year for starters. How is that materially different from the previous board's position?

Can't agree. We raised over £400k by fans & families digging deep in their pockets to try save the club. They wouldn't have been able to do that again. People can't afford.

Errr, the previous board were in situ for 6 years whereas the current board have been in control for 6 weeks.

We don't know for certain that the previous board wouldn't have raised the required money in the same way we can't for certain say that elves don't exist.

Ridiculous comparison.

And nobody forced the current board, and Caisley, to oust the previous board.

Unless this whole last few weeks has been a charade to attempt to disguise Caisley's bid for control on the cheap, it seems to me FA's argument borders on being irrefutable.

Were they bollox.

Since August 2010, when Agar, Coulby, Bates and the FD chap whose name escapes me stood down, and Duckett was appointed.

Up until August 2010, Hood and Bennett were outvoted 2 to 1 on the board, and up until a few months before, prior to when Bennett jouned the board Hood was outvoted 4 to 1.

And two of that board that were in situ for the majority of that six years now constitute a majority on the current board.