You obviously have some personal vendetta against Duffy. Is it that you didn't enjoy a good career in the music business or that he used to support Leeds. I have known him since he came here and believe me he is probably more committed to the Bulls than you. Why don't you give us his job description and then we can see whether he has done it or not. Remember it was Nobby who made him Football Manager, no one else. Your comments are childish and pathetic and it's time you grew up.

Er . . . not been on this interwebby thing long, then, have you? Or is there a Dumb Question Of The Year comp going on somewhere?

I long for the day when I'm so deeply involved with the cut and thrust of events that people demand to know what my real name is.

Caisley has garnered 50.blob% of the shareholders to oust Hood and Bennett. They demanded they leave in early April but they failed to understand the M&As of the company; all shareholders have to be notified of a request for removal of any Directors and obviously have the right to vote on the proposed motions. As the outcome is preordained, Hood and Bennett find themselves surely, in an untenable position. They had an offer on the table after the Leeds game which was never fulfilled after the original promise of investment. With respect to kindergarten politics, Hood has, on many, many occasions asked Caisley to come back on board and that request has not been accepted. Some comments on this thread are completely beyond belief. Stop speculating and look at the facts!

WHo has the facts???? Been trying to locate them for the last month!!!!!

Hood and Caisleys accounts of the truth are different. NObody is giving an unbiased account.

The club is in the poo because of an egomaniac, and a man who is deluded and doesnt even know the truth, or have an idea how he is perceived.

Not taking sides, apart from being behind the team, and wishing Hood and CC could sort it out and NOW!!!

There's a lot of emotion here.
Hood is not "deluded". He has run public companies for goodness sake.
Harris was not a ripple but a tsunami.
Hood has worked his socks off to try stabalise the ship and get outside investment.
Do you see a queue to the door at the Bulls of exceptionally wealthy individuals wanting to hand over their megabucks?
The game, in totality, is bankrupt; it's only SKY and the wealthy benefactors that keep it afloat in the form it is.
Whoever comes in will have to have extremely deep pockets!

Genuine question - how many companies is Hood a current director / owner of? and what became of the ones in the past? has he a proven track record?

I can own as many companies as i wish to regiuster, but it doesnt mean I am a good business person.

Could the Harris pay off have been avoided if the club post 2006 had the balls to see it out??? again, more questions than answers. We will never know.

I know that Chris Caisley can be, and has been, and will again be, a total prat. However, he has never pretended to be mr nice guy. He's got one hell of a hard head in terms of his approach to many things. but you know where you are with him.

With Hood, I cannot trust him anymore. He has misled people for too long. Both Caisley and Hood blame each other and they are both right. It's their inability to work together that is crioppling the club, not the harris saga or the perceived lies!

My recollection of the figure Leeds had sued for was (a reported) £3m, and the reason the club caved in, as I understand it, was that if the judge were to have ordered the full £3m to be paid it would have bankrupted the club, and the directors would have, apparently, been considered guilty of negligence (maybe legally so, as directors do have some obligations to shareholders) and they couldn't risk this happening.

so the apparent end result, in a worst case scenario, is go bust then, versus go bust now?

as wayne bennett (no relation I am sure) titled his book "Don't die with the music in you!"

the only winners in a court case are the legal teams, and once you get to court they really rack up. Bear in mind you do not get all your costs back, so even if we won ie defended the claim there would be a cost. So the downside risk if we went to court was an unquantifiable but almost certainly massive bill and the upside a small bill with the answer somewhere in the middle, as against an exact and maneagable cost by coming to an agreement before court. Leeds probably did a similar calculation and came to a similar conclusion, that they probably would not make the +£3m stick and the costs of getting much less were too high, so again a small but defined amount was a better option, hence a settlement.

To me the unanswered question is who advised us to go for Harris despite his contract, and why did their PI insurance not pay the bill ? Was it Walker Morris? an independent firm of solicitors? or more worrying did we get any advice?

I think the rationale was probably more along the lines of 'if you don't go bust now you live to fight another day', rather than the way you've presented it. Think of it as taking the view that discretion is the better part of valour, rather than going for the up and at 'em approach. Again, I seem to remember it was presented as something which, legally, under the constraints that directors have in relation to them being responsible for other people's investments, there was little choice about it.


To be honest, I thought very much the same as you at the time, in fact the idea that the Bulls had "cohersed" (sic) Harris to break his contract was always a load of tosh to me, and the fact that Harris' own legal bods didn't even think the contract was binding only added to that view, and Leeds certainly didn't suffer one iota because of it.

the same discretion applies to Leeds. Leeds could either go to court and get the alleged £3m claimed, or settle beforehand for £350K. they chose the latter as they knew that even if they won there was no chance of getting the money. So Leeds went for a settlement we could afford and common sense prevailed.

To me the unanswered question is who advised us to go for Harris despite his contract, and why did their PI insurance not pay the bill ? Was it Walker Morris? an independent firm of solicitors? or more worrying did we get any advice?'"

One thing I am struggling to get my head around is the speed of turnaround. On Thursday Bennett said we had three other options plus Caisley, when the content went to the programme printers Hood said it may be his last as chair because of the egm. Which would indicate that in the space of a couple of days all 3 other interests had dropped out.