I still don't think that cerise feather boa and shocking pink tutu was the best choice of attire, mind...

Well, if it turns out that we have a shedload of debt the existence of which was effectively denied then I would think that there would be every chance of a large group of disgruntled contributors consulting with lawyers and seeking their money back.

I can't think that we could possibly have been deliberately misled to THAT sort of extent (Adey has also already mentioned the "trading whilst insolvent" issue and possible ramifications) so I am sort of excluding this. But yes, it is a case where literally nothing would surprise you any more.

Rugby League is happening.

And steps up to a whole new level...

But I'm missing Salford vs Bradford and no doubt also missing out on our first historic victory at the City Of Salford Stadium.

Firstly well done of the fantastic achievement in raising the £500,000 to stay afloat. But am I missing something? From this it appears that this money means you are out of trouble and debt free?

I understood the figure needed to be in the clear was £1,000,000 and a further £500,000 from investment was still required to cover debts. Has this now changed and this extra money isn't required or is it the fact that with cheap season ticket this amount is require for running costs to see the season out?

I appreciate we'll never know what opportunities have been missed during the saga. I just thought some basic financial information (the size of the debt, how much is cancelled, the pence in the pound paid out to creditors etc) would be made public? Enough information to form an opinion whether Administration was necessary.

At the very least, as a taxpayer, I would feel entitled to know how much HMRC ends up writing off (if we do go into Administration)!

Andy has been worth every penny so far, a great leader but if the cash kept you from going into administration then winners all round.

I hope the times improve for you all now.

I think when we look back with hindsight over the next few months we'll all see that the regime that's just left did nothing for the club.

All they've ever done is talk the club down and our financial woes up, no wonder nobody wanted to invest! And it's a poor form of masses control, similar to our current governments tactics.

We had a dour regime that took us down to their level, this is sport for christs sake not geopolitics.

Let the good times re-commence, and lets start talking our wonderful club up!

rlfirst meeting of new powerbaserl

The wheel turns. One of the more positive paragraphs from the piece from Potter;

[i"It’s beginning to move forward so I think the wheel is starting to turn again.
“It froze for a month and now we’re beginning to get those cogs working again.
“Hopefully we can now start to re-sign the players that we want to retain and potentially look in the market as well"[/i

The worry that I have is in the wording of the auditor being present. Are we being lined up for the old change of a government line. Quote "Now we have seen the books, its far worse than we thought" From there on - Administration.

Hope I am not seeing shadows in every corner, but you do worry.

Why does the meeting need to be in Leeds?

I know the answer to that, but I'd much rather they were in Bradford.

All that much will be visibl;e - at least to the creditors who receive the reports from the Administrator.

But its all after the event. For example, there are lots of examples of liabilities that crystalise only on insolvency (just one example - the liability to repay the council up to 2019). And assets get written down to realisable value - usually far less than book value. That means that the financial position you see in the Statement of Affairs is always far worse than it appeared on a going concern basis.

And the uninformed can so often be mislead by the disingenuous, using those numbers, and unwittingly aided by journalists who know little about financials,to believe the financial position was far worse than it really was. Trying to explain the difference between drawing up a set of financials on a "going concern" basis and a "realisation" basis is not that easy, in the face of sensationalist headlines.

My concern - and unfortunately it is also my expectation unless there is genuinely a fair pot of new money out there and/or some of the new grouping have consciences regarding the fans who raised the £1/2m (are you listening, Mr Agar?) - is that we'll see O'Haras or whoever Mr Caisley brings in to "audit" the numbers "concluding" that administration is the only option. And then the Statement of Affairs, prepared on a realisation basis, will of course show significant net liabilities, much higher than the last accounts (which disclosed net assets) mainly because of the different basis of preparation (as is always the case in an insolvency!!!). And then some of the statement of affairs figures will be made public, and used to "prove" what a mess the last board left the comapny in and how they did not level with the fans - when the SoA may well show no such thing! But probably only the accountants, and then probably only those who have experience in insolvency (like me) will realise that.

I really hope I am wrong, and that - maybe since there are other shareholders involved (remember, despite how it might come across Mr Coulby has very few shares now, having sold most of his to Bennett) - they conclude - for whatever reasons - that declaring insolvency and going for administration is not the way forward. The whole reason I backed the pledge, and have been seriously concerned about the return of Mr Caisley, was because of a desperate wish to see administration avoided.

I also would very much love to know, definitively, whether Mr Caisley's intervention on the Thursday before the pledge deadline - coming as it did the day after a sudden major pick-up in pledges the previous day - was a deliberate attempt to derail the pledge, and the fundraising efforts of the previous board (which I believe were real and genuine, although I have no idea how realistic) just a co-incidence of timing. But I suspect only Mr Caisley could answer that.

That is my fear too.

Meeting maybe at Caisley's office? Or that of the "auditor"? And wonder who the "auditor" is? Or are we really talking insolvency practitioner?