The current plan which has been released so far from the CC consortium is:

Tasker (admin/back room), Noble (playing side) and Preston(an actor) will conduct a review and then we will come up with a plan.

Is that a good plan?

Of course the Hood option is : We have a good medium/long term business plan which will see us in good stead once we have overcome the short term issues.

These are our current options.

See any you like?

The question whether the Bulls could have won the Leeds case is sterile and stale. We will never know what advice they were given when they decided to fold, it was a big surprise to me (especially how bullish (sorry!) Caisley and others had been throughout) but given the sums involved all you can presume is that a very learned friend had advised at no doubt great cost that the game was not worth the candle.



I always thought that claim was the biggest load of hokum ever. "We could cover it"?? Well, yes, but hardly a relevant point, if what you want to know is the effect on the club's finances!!

Hypothetical Illustration:
Club X receives £1m Sky money. This is due to go up to £1.5m
Result, Club X has £1.5m to spend.

But then Club X has to pay £1m in compensation and legal costs.
Result, Club X has ONE MILLION POUNDS LESS to spend.

"But don't worry, we can pay it, cos the Sky money's gone up" is to me the most pointless, irrelevant and irritating slant on that situation. What he was really saying was "It's OK, as we can blow a large slice of what would be our Sky income, that we would have been able to use for the benefit of OUR club, on paying off Leeds and lawyers".

And anyway, we now know that, ATEOTD, we could NOT afford to pay it, as if that money was still in our coffers, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Who would the et al have been? At the time, Hood had around 7% of the shareholding and Bennett was not then significantly in the mix. Caisley has, I believe maintained around 25% throughout, so I struggle to understand where the 'Hood et al' bloc comes from to force Caisley out.

Yes, Coulby also states Caisley wanted to step down in 2004 and was persuaded to stay on. This undermines the theory that Hood forced him out or that having been forced out he has conducted a vendetta because of it.

Indeed. Having now read the Coulby article, it's clear that the current directors were in a position to control the board by 2010 (having by then acquired 25% of the shares between them), but this was not the case in 2006. Either Caisley did step down / jump ship (am I right in remembering some parting shot from Caisley about how the reasons why he was leaving would "soon become apparent"?), or he must have been pushed by some of those now apparently supporting him.

If Casiley could guarentee that he wouldnt put us into administration, would sack Mick Potter and would offload current stars then he would have my support. Until he does that then he's just making a lot of noise.

Coulby sounds like another Caisley mouthpeice IMHO.

What have you got against Potter and the current stars?

Coulby has introduced a third alternative, into the received wisdom-narrative that Caisley either went because he saw what was coming, or he went because he had lost the confidence of the board (for reasons variously speculated upon but never able to be substantiated).

I still say, as I said at the time, that his leaving cannot have come with much pre-warning; and that it cannot have been as a result of a coup by Hood to oust him and secure the job for himself. Regarding the latter, Hood went to such pains at the time to ensure he was titled only "Acting Chairman" and to make it clear he was looking for someone else to step in. He COULD have been being extremely disingenuous there, but I did not think so then and I still can't see it. Although I must admit little now would surprise me.

Coulby SEEMS to be proferring the idea a "third way" to get them through the present crisis - all the bloody major shareholders cut out arguing and save the ship first. And, presumably, hold the trials later. That is precisely what the likes of me have been saying, so you have to take what he is reported as saying seriously, IMO. Whatever his underlying motivation might be. You don't need an EGM for that. You need a table, some chairs, a few cups of tea - and a willingness to listen.

I think its a mobile mistype

100% correct

Yeah Im sure I corrected it to say wouldnt, on both occasions. Obviously not, but I did mean wouldnt.

I really hope this could happen as it seems a much better way of handling the situation

Corrections aside

Given the trouble we've had on the playing and coaching side in recent years I'd be upset if Potter was shown the door. Its taken an age to get this team looking anything like cohesive and is still work in progress. I'd be upset to see that risked by the unnecessary introduction of another coaching methodology at this stage

Unless its George Galloway and his undeniable influence on our results