Exactly

(FAOimpression[/i that you believe him......



as it neatly fits your perceptions (rightly or wrongly) of the current BoD.

Why would anyone take the time and trouble to reply to the unsubstantiated writings of an internet keyboard warrior who has provided no shred of evidence whatsoever. I know I wouldn't and so do not expect Hood to do so. One assumes that this accusation coming out after the Bulls ask supporters to pay up following the pledge is a pure coincidence and that the accusations couldn't have been mentioned earlier? It is the timing of these "revelations" that I do not trust - not necessarily the message.

i.e. You don't know. That must rankle.

The problem is that even though we've given them £500k we've got very little to show in terms of leverage. I'm sure there are plenty who believe we have the moral right to have some say, but I'm afraid that might not count for much. Similarly we have been assured by a number of people that the Board wouldn't call on the pledges unless they were 100% certain they could find the remaining £500k, however the Board had already assured us we were financially secure post the sale of the lease to the RFL.

I am a bit amazed how passively accepting of the situation most people have been and can only put that down to the great passion for the club that we all hold and the fear that it might disappear. But I still think the idea that we can fix the ownership structure after we've saved the club is just wishful thinking rather than being based upon any practical idea of how that can be achieved. Personally I don't want either Peter Hood or Chris Caisley in control and believe we've shown it could be democratised given the willingness of fans to put their own money in, so I'm not sure why we have to believe our choices always come down to picking between two men, both of whom appear to me to be incompetent.

The point is that GB is usually completely spot on in anything he says and he is usually proven right. Result? He gets slated by some who just cannot accept that they are not as clued up as they they think they are.

The same could be said for others like myself, B4C and Redeverready for our "misdemeanors" in the past.

Curious......

Because we were assured that administration meant the loss of the clubs players as no other option had presented itself. In light of this I'd prefer Caisley to the present board and have pledged out of emotion rather than reason.

This is the major problem I have. I have paid my money to save the club, not the Board and certainly am less than enthusiastic about Caisley coming back as I still believe that it was his pi$$ing contest with Hetherington that led to where we are now. However, unless one or the other or both are prepared to give up/sell thyeir shareholding in the Club I cannot see how we can move forward!

But you've been arguing for administration for years, as you said? Before anyone assured anyone about losing key players? But anyway, at present we are where we are.

One question that I do not think has ever been asked yet (apologies if I am wrong) - would the shareholders collectively be prepared to sell their shares, preferably for their nominal value since they cannot be worth a cent in an insolvency, to e.g. a supporters' trust or other entity that would be owned by the supporters?

I wonder if anyone has ever asked them?

Since THAT would resolve this sodding shareholdings abortion once and for all!

And, if they all did indeed have the best interests of the club at heart, surely they would welcome this solution to the otherwise intractable problem?

We've seen the fans raise getting on for £1/2m at short order. I suspect we'd do it again, more or less, if it solved the problem once and for all?

Now, we're thinking alike

Most of us never differed that much (apart from the odd vulture) - its just that arguing for one particular course of action over another - or seeking to explain why we are stuck with a particular course of action - invariably leads those who do not agree to immediately associate you with who they see as the bad guys.

And, sadly, too many folk use that as a means of trying to undermine the argument.

I completely agree with that sentiment and it always is the small local businesses that get shafted as they have little say as to the acceptance of any CVA. It is [isometimes[/i a necessary evil though.

[iIf[/i the financial situation is as bad as painted then administration could be inevitable at some stage regardless of the pledge.

This is why I'm particularly astounded about the complete secrecy around the financial truth while asking for a bail out. Btw I do understand the sentiment but that would only go so far with me when it comes to my money benefiting someone I don't trust.

I haven't seen too many bad guys (or girls!) on here, mostly concerned folk who care passionately about the club.

However I would be really interested if Bullbuilder - the only obvious and viable vehicle for this sort of move did raise such a question though. I'm also fairly sure that the fan base would respond positively to such a move if it were to happen, and I appreciate why such a move would have been difficult over the last couple of weeks given the desire to be all pulling in the same direction, but surely now is the time to start raising this possibility if we're serious about changing the ownership structure and preventing a takeover by another oligarchy with little interest in the supporters?

I'll post the link again, as in the absence of said sugar daddy its the only way - Community Shares!

rlhttp://www.fc-utd.co.uk/story.php?story_id

Adey, could you ask the question if the shareholders would be willing to 'sell' to the fans?

I meant "bad guys" as in Caisley or Hood or McNamara Noble or Hetherington or the tooth fairy or whoever folk deem to be responsible, from time to time!

Any activity by Bullbuilder would have to be one for the membership, in the first instance. I can't speak for either the membership or the board, other than to observe that the board is elected by the members to carry out their wishes.

But I'd ask an open question now. And of Mr Caisley and Mr Hood in particular, since I know they are both aware of the traffic on these forums:

In the interest of resolving this impasse once and for all, would you sell your shares, for face value, to a democratic entity owned by a large body of fans?

If they say "no", then its hard to see how we resolve the impasse without resorting to administration...or judicious use of a bazooka?

See above!!!

And same applies to Messrs Bennett, Agar, Bates, Coulby and Tasker, in particular - if any of you guys are reading this (or anyone who knows you is) - what say you?

At least you'd have an idea of whether they'd have any appetite for what I guess most fans would see as putting the club first?

Don't forget, of course - if you sack off the whole lot of them (I'd exclude Ryan at least from that) you'd need to find some replacements prepared to go up there in harm's way.