Well, you believe that if you want. Personally I reckon if our new board can't between the lot of 'em raise a paltry 400K to save the club they have supposedly come in to save, if they genuinely have a backer/s who will stump up 800K, then that says it all. Anybody could have come in and put out an open-ended begging bowl. Was that really the only plan? "Please give us lots of cash"?

Why should I automatically believe the reports of Coulby yet automatically dismiss the reports of Hood? With respect, you have no idea what Hood would or would not have been able to secure. like the Coulby "investors", they could have been real, or bullters, or mythical.

Anyway, just answer me this: IF there really was "800K on the table", then why, this morning, was the administrator quoted as saying that NOBODY had even come forward that was interested? 800K sounds like somebody that could reasonably be described as fairly interested, surely?

In fairness Mike, we will never now know whether the previous lot could, and would, have avoided administration. And, if so, with what consequences.

Caisley's highly-public damning condemnation of the previous lot, just before the pledge deadline and at the most crucial of times - especially I suggest for third parties who may have been considering investing/sponsoring on the back of the fans' magnificent efforts - effectively wrote off any chances the previous lot might have had of completing the job. They may have been living in cloud-cuckoo land; they may have had a realistic plan; they may have been trying to wing it; they may have just been ridiculously naïve or even reckless; they may have been misled or let down; they may have been looking to sell our star players to balance the books; they may have been on the verge of cracking the problem. The thing is, we will now never know.

Maybe Caisley needs to explain to the fans why he and Brutus Agarius did not demand of Hood and Bennett, in private, that they appointed him and several others of his cabal as directors immediately, so they became a majority on the baord and could control the business that way? A bloodless coup, at least to the outside? And, if Hood and Bennett refused, then and only then convene an EGM to have themselves appointed, but with no resolution to remove them.

I suggest he needs to explain why instead he demanded, in the full glare of publicity, that he had no confidence in the the previous lot and insisted they stood down immediately, when surely he could have achieved exactly the same result largely behind the scenes and out of the glare of publicity by doing what I outlined above. And, in so doing, instead give the impression to all the world that the club was dramatically strengthening its board in its hour of gravest need? You know, precisely the sort of thing that a prospective investor would almost certainly be delighted to see?

Why, Chris? Explain your actions, so we can better judge why you acted as you did. We might even conclude you were right. Unless, of course, you hold the supporters in too little esteem to believe you have any need to?

Perhaps the worst aspect of the whole thing, for mine, is the whole lot of the principal protagonists being irretrievably split into two camps - to the extent they won't even meet, let alone talk, and to the extent that the only communication is via mutual baggings in the press - when what the club needed was for these people to bury their differences and all come together to fight for the survival of the club. It is to their eternal shame that they did not.

Come on chaps, you know full well that the previous board were never even close to securing investment either in their last days or at any time of their reign.

I agree it could have been handled better though.

Nobody except Hood & Co. know, but certainly they were no further away than Coulby & Co. Nil isn't hard to beat.

I met with the previous board, just before Easter. Did you?

Yes - £0 from one team and £0 raised from the other. The fans raised £500k. And yet we all lost. How did this happen?

How objective will the administrator be with his report which he has to produce in 6 months time from all these goings-on?

I understand he was consulted by and appointed by Caisley?

So no questions over loyalties then?

To the victor the spoils.

No matter how Pyrrhic the victory might prove to be.

And you also get fed a load of guff, which you believed, didn't you?

Edit, my apologies, Adey, that was in regards to lease sale.

It may be possible that potential investors were interested and in discussions with Caisley and his cohorts. The desire to inject funds into the club could have ended once the new board were able to make a full diagnosis of the financial plight.

That seems at least plausible to me, and in that regard I'm not willing to brand Caisley 'a liar'

If I remember correctly, what he said was that he had people willing to invest in the club. Now we are told that he had roughly £800K of that investment - sadly not enough as it turned out. That doesn't make him a liar, although he may well have been negligent in not assessing the actual financial position before opening his mouth.

The most pertinent question is one that Adey asked (not are if it was on this thread) as to why Caisley, Coulby and Agar were not willing to work together with Hood and Bennett as a strengthened boardroom to solve the clubs problems. In that regard we can see that this mess is as much as personalities as its about money.

This has proved to be one great big pi&&ing competition between egotistical individuals who have conducted themselves appallingly, have had zero respect and regard to a fan base (not to mention the ex-player contribution) who weren't big enough to work togather for the greater benefit of the club.

Appalling childish behaviour, from two, who despite my reservations, do have the club at heart

Can I remind the assembled multitudes, where opposing warring factions are about as implacable as those within the Bulls, that there are now TEN DAYS during which both sides, having brought us to the very abyss, COULD, if they wanted to, meet and try to work together for a solution.

Will they? Not a cat in hell's.

Show Lewis' Arse Window My In

Just held my 8 year old while he sobbed his broken heart out. I have no promises to make him that all will be OK.

All he could say was promise me we'll go to every game while we can. And we will.

If I thought the 4 horsemen of the Odsal-calypse had any emotion I would have loved them to see the agony on his face. But that wouldn't fill their bank accounts or flatter their egos would it?

What I cannot reconcile is how a majority shareholder could sit back silently and allow the Club to be run by people he supposedly detests and mistrusts then feign surprise at the finances.

His inertia makes him just as, if not more culpable than those trying to steer the ship. At least they had the cajunas to put their hands up and have a go.

A captain goes down with his ship. Cowards stand by and watch it sink. Seems mr caisley fits both camps.