This is a clever letter from Bennett because without us seeing the books and limited info we're given nobody knows whether the business is totally insolvent as a result of the liabilities Adey mentions.

He states that the business was in a right mess and they've performed miracles to keep it going. I suspect they've hovered close to, or just over the line of insolvency for a long time and the combination of factors has pulled their plug. In this way CC gets the blame for taking the club into administration when in actual fact it's the only option. Let's face it, Ryan Duckett has been having 'confidential conversations' for three weeks and not a single investor/new sponsor has even been rumoured.

The point I'm making here is that administration may be the correct option in the circumstances. Adey makes a good point about creditors being shafted but this has to be weighed against the employees, many low paid, who will be sacked in the various business plans dealing with huge debt, the massive negative impact on the local economy of the club going under and the huge overall loss to the state in future tax and NI contributions.

The suggestion is that adminstraion is a tactical choice when there's every chance it's the only way to stop the club folding completely. This would be bad for Bennett because he'll get nothing but he's wrong to suggest CC will be the sole shareholder. Why would the other shareholders support a takeover to see themselves get nothing? It doesn't make sense.

When Wakey went into admin I think Glover picked up the local creditors. IF CC and co took the club into apre-pack admin, honoured the season ticket holders, protected the people at the club, picked up all small creditors, and kept the playing roster going forward I'd accept that.

I've seen Bradford get a total nappy full from central gov down the years as long as the club goes forward HMRC can suck on it.

........Leaving HMRC to reduce tax credits for young families and the low paid and hit pensioners in the pocket.

And before I'm hit with screams of the Bulls not paying up hasn't caused the current economic mess the country is in, IMO companies not meeting their liabilities just makes the man in the street an even easier target to be taxed at source to meet these shortfalls from businesses with a "suck on it" attitude.

HMRC don't reduce tax credits for anyone or hit pensioners in the pocket - the government did that.

If it was my choice we'd have played great rugby for years, have sponsors tripping over themselves to give us money and not be looking down the barrel of a liquidators gun. I'd take admin before no club, or a club sacking half the staff and limping into an abyss. I'm not saying it's a great choice but I'd live with it. Duckett is in todays paper having more conversations and asking for more pledges. Maybe it's time we appreciated where the club clearly is.

If you want to discuss what we think government spending priorities should be I'd skip invading Iran.

Last time I looked HMRC was a govt department.

But yes we all want the same thing for the club - survival - I never questioned that. My concern is that admin may be seen as the golden goose without a thought for micro and macro consequences.

If after all this effort we still end up shafting the tax payer it will be a sad, sad day.

Liquidating a business is not a way to avoid personal debt, directors can still, in some circumstances be held liable for the state of the business and are certainly still liable for any personal guarantees that they may have made against business loans etc.

There is a mistaken belief amongst the general population that folding a business and walking away from the mess left behind is an easy option for directors when in reality it isn't and there is a mistaken belief that its in some way an easy solution to HMRC debt, a too easy solution - what many don't realise is that a Ltd company is a legal entity in itself, its the company that owes the debt, the directors have a responsibility to ensure that the business is run in a proper way with proper accounting methods, but ultimately unless they have given personal guarantees, its the legal entity that is the Ltd company that owes the debt, not the directors unless they can be proved to have done something illegal (hardly ever the case).

And you can't have it both ways - you can't have a country built on entrepreneurs, you can't have a taxation system that allows legal entities to be formed with limited liability (thats what the Limited in Ltd Company means) as long as that legal entity can be taxed AS WELL as the directors being personally taxed, you can't have that system if you then expect the Limited Liability status to include Complete Liability from the directors - you'd immediately kill off nearly every business in the country.

If you have ever run a business that operates business-to-business yourself then you will have at some point lost money when a client goes into administration, its part and parcel of the risk you take when offering credit to businesses and if you can't afford to take that risk then you shouldn't be doing it.

Yours,

"Been there, done that, liquidated"

Is it possible to quite so selective as to which creditors are protected from the effects of Administration? Wouldnt HMRC be able to block an Administration which is so biased against them?

Common sense prevails, along with McLaren Fields point about administration.

I think Glover honoured the suppliers even when he didn't need to as an act of goodwill.

Maybe we're jumping the gun here. The current board are getting the message out there that CC will take over and immediately put the club into admin.
1, We're caught in a maelstrom of rumour and counter scare story and I wouldn't trust anything at the moment.
2, Maybe admin is where the club should be to safeguard the club and its staff whilst there's still enough of the business left.

Without the figures it's a guessing game!

Interesting point about CC not being a fit and proper person according to Bennett. Is this based on anything other than he doesn't like him? Or was there a 'bringing game into disrepute charge'?

Fair points as ever Maislebugs. And let's be perfectly honest here, what Nigel Wood thinks of CC is actually irrelevant to a degree given the game needs a strong Bulls model and moreover it would be a brave governing body to decline an alternative viable solution in comparison to the current state of the club.

As for Bennetts view of CC, he obviously has no qualms about letting his emotion and personal jaundiced views affecting what may well be a positive solution for the club. Brave his similarly to step into the arena of potential libel. But that's his choice.

Given the perception of some fans of CC, and indeed the extreme vitriol verging on personal obsession and, to coin a phrase, agendas by proxy toward him, perhaps it is worth seeing his next move, if there is one before we feed him to the lions.

And to clear up any confusion for some posters, it is very clear that I am not Chris Caisley. Nor any representation of him by proxy or otherwise. Nor am I any other of the suggestions that have been spuriously mooted. The obsession with this is embarrassing. I have my views that I have aired, as others rightly have on theirs. That's what a democracy allows us to do. To suggest they are any more agenda based than anybody else's strong views is thoroughly incongruous. Or, more simply, get a grip.

So .. is it implied that the current regime will collect all the pledges, pay off any current debts, CC will then have a EGM, force out the current regime, wait for the next set of bills and then go into administration?

Sounds like a likely scenario, caisley to the rescue, fantastic!

So initially we had two options, i) raise £500k or be ii) go into Administration. We now have option iii) Both of the aboce. Only in Bradford.

Great

Why would anyone want this to happen? Or think this is for the good of the club?

Can Chris Caisley force out the current regime, is it possible?

Without administration the chairman will be either Hood or Caisley with Agar's shares effectively making him "kingmaker".
The fans won't get a say.

So the choices are between Caisley - who was the chairman at a time of unparalled success then made a couple of huge errors which brought about the decline we are in - or - Hood, who has been unable to get us out of the decline.

Or, to put it another way - the guy who got us into this mess or the one who can't get us out.

Neither party has put any sort of inspiring medium term plan in the public domain.

I still don't think Caisley would take administration as a risk free option though. He would be going into it as the largest shareholder and probably chairman. He would come out of it as either a majority sharholder of a newco or as an ex-chairman and ex-shareholder of a newco which was taken over by an alternative bidder that the administrators preferred.

Let's hope that someone's unspecified medium term plan actually works.