Yes Robbie's still CEO. This weeks belong email just came through and it's prefaced with a statement from Robbie that mentions yesterday's agreement.

more often court action never gets there. 1. Costs and 2. A person might think that they have a watertight case and then leave disappointed and with a seriously empty wallet.
Frankly no one knows what the outcome will be

Deja and Vu spring to mind!

Free Lunch is a phrase one finds used in English Literature.

I agree, I very much doubt there is any racial angle in there at all.

I've discussed this question of perceived slant with Ross. He assures me that there is no slant from him, and that he is just trying to report what is there. Judge for yoursellves, although I know for a fact that OK played hell with him over some aspects of reporting when HE was in charge - not least because someone I trust saw it first hand. Maybe it is the lot of the messenger to be shot at?

Let's not forget, Ross is a journalist and his job is to report news and stories. Not to be the club PR department, and equally not to be the voice of those who might wish to upset the applecart. For every reader who sees Ross' reports on the financials as negative, there will be another who plays hell with him for not digging into (or legally being able to publish) things further. You can see plenty of the latter on the T&A rantaboard.

I'm sure he is as frustrated as the rest of us with what is going on, and the continuing lack of closure and of sugar daddies. Regardless of in what form, OK DID put funds into the club, so maybe he is taking that into account? Don't forget, he is a sports journalist and so the financials and legals are not really his field. (I suspect most fans would empathise with that!)

I used to play merry hell with Caisley for berating the media - or the fans for that matter - when they said things he did not agree with. Indeed, my own more active engagement with the club started at the turn of the century, when (in a post titled "A new year's plea"icon_wink.gif I pleaded with Caisley and Sadler - and others - to quit trying to score points off each other and move on. And we had a major run-in with the guy over a piece Bullseye and I wrote regarding his silly proposal for a Sky "Blackout" a few years later, that figured prominently in the T&A and other media. He went ape over it, but tough titty mate - spout bollox and you have to expect a reaction!

And I'd make the same plea to those running the club now. If you don't like what is being reported, sit down with the guy and explain your case. But recognise that he has his job to do, and that job is not the club PR department.

I DO think the T&A ought to be asking a lot more questions of the invisible Gerry. As I have said before, as an active director more than happy to share the limelight when things looked positive, IMO he has serious questions to answer now. But maybe if this ownership crap gets finally sorted, that will prove unnecessary. And probably best all round. But you can hardly take issue with a sports journalist for not paddling in that pool - its way out of his league. Whether, as some allege, the T&A is in the pocket of the council and the politicians is not something a sports journalist should have to concern himself with, surely?

And it sure as hell is not something the fans, who just want to watch a load of supreme athletes chucking an oval ball around on the park with extreme skill and bollox to all the financials and legals, should have to worry about?

Does the vast majority of the Asian community or, come to that, the population of the district give a toss what is happening at the Bulls or on the back page of the T&A?

There does seem to be some element stereotyping going on in a few posts. Whilst I think you're correct and most 'Asians' don't give a tinker's cuss for RL [you need only glance around the stadia] the one thing I've learned from friends is that the 'Asian community', split as it is, by religions and 'homeland' factions, is far from being some kind of homogenised lump and is as diverse as the 'non Asian community' when it comes to taking sides in disputes.

Reasonably successful people tend to divide all opinion anyway, I'd suspect Omar falls into that category.

What's odd about the t&a saga is that, as pointed out at the time, the articles that I think the bulls board are referring to as damaging weren't actually credited to Ross himself. Instead of his name being at the top of the article, there was simply nothing there. So who wrote them?

Are there any examples of this pro-OK stance as I can't recall reading anything in the T and A and thinking this is pro or anti OK or Moore/Calvert/Watt.

The article which I thought was bizarre and I have no idea why Ross or the editor went with was the one which claimed Lord Peter of Hood was effectively cleared of wrongdoing and the club would be in a better shape if he'd stayed in control. The sentence which stated the club had 200k in the bank at the time he left without mentioning Lord Peter had sold the ground and begged a half a million in the months prior, is up there with Freddie Starr ate my hamster.

The only thing bizarre is that your still missing the point(s) as a starter clue the Bulls didn't own the ground they sold their leasing of it to the RFL! (Which is why the RFL are still taking such a keen interest in having the Bulls as a going concern.)
The rest of your assumptions are as usual up in the air!

Apologies, I assumed everyone on here knew the bit about the lease/ground.

On my other up in the air assumptions, did I merely assume that someone once said that things were going so well the Good Friday 2012 game against Leeds could be the club's last? Or did that really happen?