If the club are having to pay 98K per month in revenue and in addition to wages then if/when the Bulls enter admin I cannot see anything other than a mass culling of staff and players to get this bill down. Also if a new owner comes along do they honour the season tickets from the previous regime (Mr Glover did at Wakefield) or do they start afresh charging entry just an interesting little dilema.

Is this "independent" in the same sense as the 'independent' Office of Budget Responsibility, which on closer inspection turns out to be a branch of the treasury? Or in more simple terms a part of government.

A bit like, the "democratic" Republic of Where Ever, I am suspicious of the need to stick words like those in front of the title.

I'd liken it more to "independent" opinion polling

If the writing on here is too hard for you, I have some Janet and John books in the loft, I think, and you can have them if I can find them.

I notice this is the 2nd home game we have had since the new board has taken over and NOT ONE WORD in 2 game day programs from them DISCRASEFULL.

How long does a administration likely take and is it possible we could keep this squad together?

I could take a administration and points loss this season if we could keep the squad together and come out the other side better of for it.

There answer to your first question determines your second.

If we have something ready it could take days and the players would stay. If we don't it could take weeks (I doubt we would last months) and the players would be sold to pay the bills.

2 days to go now - Looks like a CVA on Monday

Do you know what a CVA is? And what is involved?

From an earlier post, you seemed to lack understanding of insolvency options and proceedings.

Ps. It is a Company Voluntary Arrangement. Not Administration. Very very different.

Just a thought in the interest of balance. perhaps Caisley didnt deliberately scupper the pledge, and Hood and Bennets plans:
At the start of all this, Peter Hood asserted that the club needed £500k to survive beyond the middle of April, and another £3-500k to keep the club afloat till the end of the season. He, or Ryan, or Bennett (wish i could remember), went public and said that anything over £750-800k should be enough.

The new BoD, through Guilfoyle, have stated that they have that £800k ready to be invested, its just the other £400k that needs to be found that is holding it back.

So here's one for you. Perhaps Caisley, Coulby et al believed Hoods reckoning, and had managed to get that amount ready to go. It's only because Hood didnt publicise / recognise the full amount needed that we now face admin with a new board. Perhaps if Hood had gotten closer to reality with his numbers, Caisley would have realised that he didnt have the cash to keep the club from Admin, and not have come forward when he did.


perhaps?

Perhaps.

Or perhaps games are being played, and we are not being told the truth now either?

Or perhaps the expected income position has worsened since the previous board was ejected, perhaps as a consequence of Caisley making the internecine strife very very public, perhaps becuase of of the continuing and protracted uncertainty?

Or perhaps some further costs have materialised that were not known earlier?

Or perhaps the previous board had plans to plug the gap (e.g selling players) that are not considered practicable by the new board?

Or perhaps the new board feels it needs to err much more on the side of caution, given the circumstances, and so is making more prudent assumptions which may prove over-cautious?

Or perhaps...I could speculate ad nauseum - we all could.


What does come across on here is that the views people seem to hold of the personalities involved - previous and current - very heavily influence the direction and nature of their speculation and opinion as to the honesty, integrity and competence of the various personalities. Which is entirely OK and to be expected. I just hope enough facts and truth finally seeps out to enable us to better judge who the true villains of the piece were - if any - or indeed whether all parties did their best, but that best was still not enough. The victors are the ones who get to write history, of course.

You have clearly been leaning heavily to the new board. I was and remain sceptical of the original motives behind the dismissal of the old board, or of the extent to which Coulby is his own man in this (Agar's motives were I suspect honest and genuine, albeit possibly subject to influence by others?) and not just Medvedev to Caisley's Putin (although I would be very glad indeed to discover my scepticism was misplaced). Remember that Coulby owns hardly any shares now. Equally, the dire straits we were in at the time of the pledge just did not stack up with the funds the club should have received in the immediately preceding few months, without some Higgs Boson of a missing explanation, IMO. Our respective views and speculations are bound to be influenced by the foregoing.

I think I read or was told that Caisley was given financial information a good few weeks ago though - I think before Easter - but only the parties involved will know who received what when, and the extent to which that enabled any kind of objective view to be formed. In the present situation, I know my own reaction would almost certainly have been, and be, one of serious caution and prudence, and I would not take any numbers I received at face value but would check them and the underlying assumptions pretty thoroughly (as I do in much of my day job...), so I could fully understand a prudent and cautious view being taken.

Or perhaps CC has asked for his personal "loan" to the Bulls to be repaid and perhaps he asked for a 5% interest on it as well. And perhaps that has been paid, and perhaps that is another amount of money that needs to be found to keep us afloat. Like I say....perhaps

We can speculate till the cows come home. I'm keeping my powder dry. Let's hope that if admin does take place (and I expect it will) we have arrangements in place to make it as painless as possible.

I am not a Caisley fan at all. I find him arrogant and cocky beyond belief and he's told us just as many untruths as Hood has over the years I am sure. I just think that we need to be balanced and accept that Hood's and Caisley's boards have equally contributed to this demise, by their actions and inactions! And there have been some external factors. Neither has accepted that the business wasnt viable commercially under their watch and both have doen things that have led to us being where we are now!

In my opinion. The Bulls have wrongly banked on the Stadium being renovated or rebuilt. the failure of this scheme to materialise is the key event. The club's failure to accept this and clinging on to the hope of a new ground as being the one thing that can save us, is what had led us down this path. Both camps, Caisley and Hood are as guilty as each other for this.

Caisley's renegotiation of the deal on Odsal in 2002/3 led to the club hvaing more liabilities for the Odsal upkeep, and more opportunities to grow the business going forward. But as the stadium development stalled and died, the club has cut and cut until there is nothing left to cut, without actually admitting just how bad things had got. Hood's failure to see that the stadium wouldnt happen, and his subsequent head in the sand approach, compounded the failures of Caisley.

In all honesty, I feel that the impending Administration and possible liquidadtion and rebirth via a newco could, and should have been done sooner. The pledge money propped the club up for a month before we started missing payments !

Again, the personalities of Hood and Caisley (and their cohorts) delayed and further damaged what could be salvaged as both looked to blame the other!

We'd be better off with a new broom. And the only way I can see this happening is through CAisley getting control through Admin and heading a newco, which then allows him to take his moeny, and run. Short term pain, for hopefully, long term gain.

Fair enough. Just wish everyone tried to look at it as objectively!

New broom for sure - but I'd jump for joy if some new party, unknown and unexpected to all of us, suddenly appeared and paid off the whole lot of the major shareholders. Or trumped any bid from an existing shareholder for the assets ex administration. Although administration is still by no means certain IMO - the consequences could be so dire - and the exposure to blind chance so large, that it is simply not an option. Maybe the new board might come to regret not engaging with the fans? But the Notice expires tomorrow (or tonight?) so they either have to seek an extension from the Court, obtain a stay of execution from HMRC regarding winding up, secure the funding, or press the admin button in the next 24 hours, as far as I can see? So we should have SOME better idea very soon. We may yet be surprised; and not for the first time!