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

So, number one done, fine. Number 2 going forwards from year 2 onwards involves a combination of higher season ticket prices combined with not spending anywhere near the full cap (an unpopular view I have posted elsewhere, as this is the only variable we have complete control over going forward, Ceteris paribus ), topped up with whatever investment we can drag up.

So the immediate issue is number 2 this year... I still don't think admin is the best solution to that one, but maybe I'm wrong.

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 The safety mechanism to cope with this is the standard business Bank overdraft, if said safety mechanism is suddenly withdrawn, that manageable Hole now becomes a fiscal nightmare leaving the Club in a quandry with a Hole that needs to be filled and quickly, Two courses of action are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.

Indeed. And, surprisingly (not!) he's saying as much about it now he's out, as he was when he was in. I don't know what he'll be doing next, but I'm betting it won't be a Director of Communications anywhere



Do you suppose the T&A are even asking him for comments on all this stuff? Or even if they're not, now he is no longer in post, if something is claimed (eg the financial sit. is "believed to be" "far worse" than "was thought") wouldn't you be now shouting your case from the rooftops if you were him? I know I would be, if huge aspersions were being cast.

Some may say his silence is some form of tacit acceptance that the allegations have substance, but in reality he has a track record for hardly ever commenting on anything much at all. I suppose it's a free country, but can't understand why his PR is so bad.

If Caisley's review results in administration (as I think many of us have always asssumed it would) then the conduct of the directors will be very much under the spotlight. Indeed, the administrator is required to request information about the directors' conduct from creditors etc. I guess that may be one reason why he is saying nothing right now? Especially given his adversary is an experienced litigation lawyer not known for being gentle?

I understand that the T&A has indeed sought comments and information. For whatever reason - which may or may not include the above - he seems content to let the victors make all the PR running.

Maybe he's waiting for the review to be concluded or maybe he'll say nothing even then, who knows?

He's far from being alone in this regard though; as a supporter for over fifty years I can safely say the club has rarely made more information available than it absolutely had to. CC certainly didn't in his previous stint at the club, so unless they change the habits of a lifetime, things are unlikely to change for the better any time soon.