a few more graphs with data taken from a number of sources and using one or two assumptions, though where it is stated that previous years have been modified I have used those figures. GDP is for the UK, Disposable income is sort of for Bradford, Unemployment definitely so. I have assumed that purchase of intangible assets is player purchases. operating figures have been taken where possible to exclude any Odsal/extraordinary items effect as the aim is to see the performance of the business rather than any financial engineering. despite the foregoing being an apparent disclaimer, any inaccuracies in the figures are entirely my responsibility, if anybody has any better please let me have them.

the most important line in the trends section is that red one in the middle, cost of sales, which stays pretty level after the return to Odsal. The other line of note is admin costs, which you can see goes up sharply on the return to Odsal, then reduces quickly when Hood took over and then slowly as time progresses, basically not much left to cut. So Caisleys prediction came home to roost. High Odsal costs, declining income.

As for the bench marking, I originally titled it Caisley V Hood, but the new title is I believe far more suitably ambiguous as to which is which. The graph that probably clinches it for me is the transfer fees net - average a year btw -Caisley a net spender, Hood a net receiver, and a reminder that recent player recruitment has been driven by a need to survive as much as by the needs of the team.

The figures also show that one of the individuals involved in the review process both created and walked away from one of hte most intractable financial issues facing the club, so I am just hoping that his years in the wilderness have given him a fresh insight into how to deal with it, and most importantly the funds. And that is why I am a bit concerned about the disclaimers in the news release, as to how much funders would be willing to put in. Lets hope its a billionaire.

and to bring things up to date BB, recent recruitment has shown an upward trend, and theres a good core of experienced and young players to build on, and an excellent academy side that despite being depleted by the senior teams injuries has kept winning. AND it looks like we are going to have some exciting half backs of our own coming through not just forwards that stay and outside backs that we then sell off.

anyway, not long to wait now.

Well one thing's for sure. If it's who you seem to think it is he wont be getting his job back at Leeds. They were really glad to see the back of him. Failed miserably.

Interesting. I suppose,(not being, in any way, disparaging btw, as you've obviously spent a good bit of time on it) if it shows anything definite, it's that the more you put in the more likely you are to do well, though obviously you can only put in what you've got, and at the minute it's not a lot.

The area in general isn't awash with money either, but I guess we already knew that. FWIW, and I accept it's probably not a lot, I don't expect CC to come up any great amounts, not because of any failings on his part but because I doubt they are there to be found; not around here, anyway. Hope I'm wrong, but Hood had an open offer to anyone interested, with serious cash, to come forward and got nothing; let's hope CC has a wider circle of business contacts.

With the past misjudgments, it's a bit of a cliché, but the only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't make decisions. Not only that, but we do learn from mistakes (or most of us do ) and these are intelligent people, so I'm sure any lessons from the past have been read, marked and inwardly digested, as it were. As you say, not long to go...

I see your use of grammar is as widely as inaccurate as your assumption as to who I am, or rather am not. One of your alter ego's (appropriately) also recently suggested I am Chris Caisley. Perhaps you should create yet another username for additional suggestions; obviously not using your Bulls work address.

MWB, interesting graphs, but maybe they need some more context around playing performance, off-field activity etc. I'm loathe to analyse an OPTA-style sports club model because there are too many indefinables.

Bulliac, re: making a mistake requires someone to make a decision; absolutely spot on

GB the performance side has been hacked around ad nauseam, and there are others far better qualified than I am to comment in detail. The league position graph and the net player spend/receipts pretty much say all you need to know on the background to the performances over the last couple of years. Faced with the unattractiveness of the Bulls to top quality experienced players, and the Orford situation being a case in point, and a lack of money anyway, the club have sensibly focused on youth, and the team approach typified in football by the likes of Stoke and until recently Bolton. I feel that we are at long last at the start of an upcyle, even if a year late, better late than never. so it is crucial to have financial stability to keep that improvement going, and in particular keep the young developing players.

If you want to be a reporter you really need to get a new source.

Why does everyone claim to know GB? Does anyone actually know who he is?

He's my mum.

He's Keith Senior

Gurus_Beard shagged my wife

Is it George Galloway? It sounds similar!

So you know it's definitely not Simon Fox?

Proof?

He's Richie Spedding

You mean implies, right?