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"icon_wink.gif 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.

It may look quite strange, looking back? When they did not immediately announce the pledge results as promised, I assumed it was because they had to be very clear in their minds that by taking the money they had a realistic expectation of avoiding insolvency, and that the terms of the pledge had indeed been met. Given how close it was, and that there were bound to be some bogus pledges in there, that made sense to me.

BUT...if they HAD satisfied themselves that they should thereby avoid insolvency (even if that would mean e.g. selling players or cost-cutting), then I reasoned that as directors their responsibility was to call the pledges in to ensure they DID indeed avoid insolvency. Had they NOT done so, I reasoned they could be in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to take all reasonable steps to avoid insolvency. So it may be that they had no choice, regardless of whether they were subsequently booted out. And to my knowledge none of the Caisley cabal ever said in public that they disagreed with the pledge and that it should not be called in? (If that is incorrect, happy to see the detail and acknowledge).

There may well have been other motives and reasons, somne of which have been speculated upon on here. And calling in the pledges certainly made it far harder for the successors to go down the administration route from day 1.

I suppose I was taking him at his word when he said we needed £1m in total and quickly. I can't see how we could possibly raise £500k in the short term from player sales and cost cutting. Hence my assumption when I pledged was that he was genuinely confident of securing additional investment. And whilst it was obvious that there were issues with CC and other shareholders, I assumed, when he called in the pledge, that some sort of agreement had been reached to allow him to do a deal.

Obviously any sale or acquisition can collapse at the last minute , but it shouldnt have been due to lack of support from major shareholders as this should already have been secured.

Anyone else wondering where this investment caisley had already lined up is...the one who he/she/they said wouldn't invest under the current board. The board has gone and still no word on investment.

I'm not wondering at all.

So far, its playing out precisely as I expected and forecast on here.

Still time for me to be proved wrong. I hope I am.

Oh no lets all still blame that nasty Mr Caisley for shafting over Mr Hood who had done such a sterling job.

Who's blaming Caisley for anything. I was simply asking others if they wondered where this mystery investor was.

Care to explain? Hood mugged you off, not me. Whatever must you think of him then?

In fairness, he probably needed it given all the "brilliant" work he did for free.

Still, I would rather be the "pantomime villain" than a pompous, self righteous, club apologist any day of the week. At least I will not end up with egg on my face.

Steady on squire, I am fairly certain RER was not referring to you.

Wasn't aimed at you.

The pursuance of breaches of fiduciary duty invariably involve the charge of 'prefering ones own interest over the interests of ......' ie preferential payments. Hood could have made the deal with Leeds and never paid them. Upon their final demand he could have entered administration. In such circumstances the liquidator would only pursue a matter if, he/she believed there was significant monies recoverable from the directors, or an act of fraud. As long as Hood hadn't paid himself, paid certain creditors above others, or made any other 'odd' payments to directors there would have been little in the way of comeback.

As has been the case on this forum for the last six or seven weeks, there is much assumption and guesswork, punctuated by Adey giving us his reasoned ideas as an acountant. theres the usual, "hood's a liar" versus "Caisley scuppered the pledge" and the truth is we will never know!

All I ask is: Why did the club announce Elliot Whitehead's new contract when they did? If we are talking about knowingly trading whilst insolvent, this is a bombshell for Hood and Bennett isnt it?

OK - Worst case scenario - Administration.

The clubs financial commitments going forward on contracts already signed are cancelled. This would include suppliers, players and staff. The newco is then able to negotiate new contracts going forward. we may lose some dead wood, but also risk losing some that we would want to keep. Would the contract with Bradford MDC for Tong be cancelled??? Do we own, or rent Tong? I am sure that as part of the review, these are the type of discussions taking place, not just looking at where we are, but what we need to function!

the club will receive a points deduction upon entering administration - costing a possbile playoff place (but perhaps not!) and a likely share of prize money.

We may be risking our license at the next review for SL - but are we really??? would the RFL bin the BUlls where it had already kept Wakefield in under similar circumstances, and financially supported the London club and the Welsh club over a number of years? Also, if we are not in SL, what is ODsal worth to them? This could be Hood's legacy. Giveing the RFL odsal to protect our Superleague status!

Our reputation to business partners and ability to get anything on credit will go through the floor - but isnt it there already?

A less complicated shareholding is created. The current shareholders are annoyed, but perhaps in a year or two of prudent trading, a new owner comes along and buys Caisley et al out? Long term stability could be acheived much more quickly?

I am no expert, and have no more intimate understanding of running a sports club than anyone else on here. Could it be that simple?

Disagree. Although we may be arguing over semantics, since I am including the wider responsibilities under the Companies Act and the Insolvency Act.

Had he settled with Leeds, that act would have immediately rendered Bulls insolvent. He would have immediately have had to put the club into formal insolvency. No waiting for final demand or anything. And the liability to Leeds would have been crystalised at £3.2m (or whatever), whereas without settlement then in any insolvency no insolvecny practitioner was ever going to admit a proof of debt for more than a fraction of that amount.

And Hood and his fellow directors would then have been under the spotlight for WHY they settled with Leeds, KNOWING that it would lead to immediate insolvency and therefore loss to ALL the creditors, instead of fighting the case which may have (and did mean) insolvency was avoided, or at worst that the loss to the other creditors was likely to be less.

And, more to the point, how long they knew they were going to settle? And what liabilities did the club take on in the meantime? When they would clearly have been trading whilst insolvent, and in the face of the huge agreed liability to Leeds likely to sweep up most of any funds available for the unsecureds, would struggle to demonstrate it was in the best interests of the body of the creditors that they continued trading.

Plus, of course, they would be exposed anyway for agreeing a commitment with Leeds that they knew the company had no chance of honouring.

Plenty of fertile ground there for creditors who had lost out (especially the Council and HMRC) to seek to recover their losses from any source. And for the administrator, on behalf of the company to sue its directors for recovery of losses through gross negligence or whatever.

Although I've had a fair bit of experience in this field, the likes of the 'Vark would be better qualified to go into the specific legal issues and remedies. But I have seen pretty well everything I've
outlined above pursued in some form or another at one time or another.