Going, Going, Gone.

Quote: Adeybull "We can all speculate till the cows come home, but it seems clear they have issued a press release and that is that for now.

I've not come across an EGM being cancelled before, so I'm unsure what the legal position is but they must be happy it's OK. Obviously, the samll shareholders are now denied the opportunity of making their voices heard.

I'd very much like to know who the accountant carrying out the review is, and in particular what his personal specialisation is - especially if it is in insolvency.

Its interesting that the backers that the Caisley camp seemed to suggest were waiting in the wings seem to be rather more tentative than we were perhaps encouraged to believe. I guess its premature to read too many bad things into that, given it is perhaps understandable that people will be reluctant to commit until the uncertainties are resolved, but it would have been nice had that been made a bit more clear earlier? Of course, if such prospective backers were of the view - for whatever reason - that they will only put money into Newco and not the existing company, then we could well end up being told that administration is the only option, and creditors not being paid and the pledge money counting for naught, if new funds are to be secured. Or if maybe the review concludes that the only way such prospective backers will commit is if they start with a clean sheet - even though that was never alluded to before. But I'm falling into the trap of speculating! It is to be hoped that there is no pre-ordained agenda, and that all parties want to avoid administration at all costs.

As for Caisley not being appointed as a director now, that will doubtless be a cause of much speculation, regardless of how much power he actually wields behind the scenes. One possibility is that he distances himself from any decisions that involve putting the club into administration, so he feels he is not tarnished by association or involvement when people end up losing money. That is not an uncommon situation, and in my view would be quite understandable. I guess that, if nothing else, staying off the baord for now keeps his options open, which may be the prudent course of action until the review is concluded.

Another possibility that has been raised by several folk on the T&A in particular is that they seem to "knopw" or believe that the RFL does not deem Caisley to be a fit and proper person to run a SL club. Although several have stated this as if fact, I must admit I have never ever seen this referred to anywhere official - nor would I have expected to, even if it happened to have some legs. So those folk either have some inside/confidential information, or are just speculating or repeating gossip. I'll work on the assumption that it is the latter, unless it is ever shown to be otherwise. There is far too much dangerous gossip flaoting around as it is.

Or maybe he is genuinely unsure of how much he wants to get involved day to day again? Especially if, as they say, they don't yet know the full position untikl the review is completed. After all, who the hell would want that thankless job? No pay, lost of work, LOTS of flak from the fans (much of which doubtless uninformed and/or unjustified) and no small amount of very personal abuse - you'd either have to be very very passionate about the club, have huge self-confidence and ego or be very naïve IMO to take the job on! Indeed, some on places like the T&A have suggested that, and suggested that he wanted to stand down earlier than he did the last time because he had a young family to see. That would make perfectv sense to me, tbh, although if not him then who? Maybe a key decision is how much real power to delegate to the CEO, be that Duckett, Tasker, or whoever - like the Hetherington situation at Leeds? And especially any decision regarding bringing Tasker in as CEO and what Noble's role would be, and where that then leaves Duckett and Duffy? I could easily see a key decision being whether the chair role remains executive, or becomes more non-executive.

I certainly believe that, later in his first tenure, Caisley was feeling let down by the fans. A number of reasons, one of which being his response to how fans responded to one of his public attacks on the fans for not turning up in enough numbers - which concern was clearly and understandably IMO worrying him greatly, as I saw with my own eyes. In that case (and it was not that long before he stepped down, and was the first hint I had that he might) he said that he hoped his successor would find the job a bit easier than he had. I still have a copy of the email where he said that. And I must admit its hard not to sympathise, since in that job you are damned whatever you do. So it is far from impossible that he indeed is unsure how much commitment now to give?

But it's all speculation, and only he knows the extent to which any of the above may or may not be pertinent. I guess we'll just have to sit it out an wait until they next decide to tell us something. I'd doubt that the hopes of many fans, for more openness and engagement, will be realised in the short term, since much of what will be going on will be commercially sensitive. And understandably so IMO. Beyond that, I guess that is too far ahead right now.'"

Some fair point there and as you say it's difficult to speculate given the relativity of track record of some involved.

What I would say is I find the RFL's judgement of CC to not be fit and proper is somewhat ironic given that they have given away prestigious headline sponsorship of the flagship competition for nothing. Literally. That they feel they can criticise someone who has built up a multi million pound business and represents the likes of Theo Walcott, Steve McLaren, Alex Oxlade Chamberlain and even the current Rangers takeover by Brian Kennedy, is beautifully ironic. Nigel Wood, has my utter contempt as an individual and a CEO of a major sport.

That aside, it would be simply foolish for the potential roll out of the board to be revealed, given that logically, no review has even been carried out as yet. It does however seem clear that a pragmatic and effective way forward is what the new regime is angling towards with transparency when it is prudent to do so. Revealing levels of debt or otherwise would make no sense with investors keen to see an outcome prior to commitment.

Similarly, I'm not certain Nobby carrying out an independent review of the football side of the club necessarily leads to his appointment as head coach. Similarly with Tasker or CCs involvement. What is clear is there are names with both a track record of success and the ability to change the landscape if it's needed. Quite how existing members of the staff may fit in remains to be seen. Some are clearly very good at their roles, others perhaps past their best or simply not upto the job. What is clear is that there will be change. It's about time. We've p*ssed about living on the Bulls dream for too long with zero substance.

As you say our , speculation is just that.