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.

or caisley managed to persuade enough of major shareholders to back him at EGM regardless of what happened with the other options.

But that is independent of whether they are still talking to the three other parties. If I was Hood (I would have limited my period as chair to 3 years then resigned and left Caisley holding the baby again) and still had a good chance of getting funders in, thats what I would be going to the EGM with. And the message has a hint of calling Caisley.

PS off topic but the Yorkshire Posts coverage is just so much more informative than the TnA, the Independent to the TnA's Sun. theres a lot of interesting stuff in this article and othershttps://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/bradford-bulls/coulby-calls-for-clarity-as-bulls-continue-their-fight-1-4466587rl

they both get the same press releases, YP just seem to do more with the material. journos dont beat me up for this please1

What is gradually emerging is a strange farce. Far from conspiring to bring down Hood and Bennet it appears that Caisley and the others stood by and did nothing primarily because they didn't want the job of running it themselves. The other shareholders and board members believed Hood and Bennett to be useless and their decisions to be wrong and further more having seen the figures, believed they were perpetuating a myth re:Harrisgate to cover their own failings.

They reconstituted the board, largely it would seem so as NOT to have board meetings because they argued too much and so, have neither backed the current board, nor removed them. Hence a series of capitulations. Caisley has even acted as agent some of the clubs players in transfers away from the club.

NO board should ever have tolerated such a situation where they clearly had zero support from the majority shareholding and martin is right when he says Hood should have stepped down. Whatever their failings the job was simply impossible in the circumstances. He should have stepped down when Caisley acted for Sam Burgess citing a ridiculous conflict of interest. Furthermore,NO shareholding should have tolerated a situation where the majority of shareholders believed the current board was making a hash of the job and actively perpetuating a smear against Chris Caisley. That they waited 20 months to do anything about the lack of a meeting says as much abouth them as Hood.

Whilst we've been arguing about plots and conspiracies what's actually been happening is a abject inertia. Hood not up to the job, the shareholders not up to doing anything to either help or end his tenure. What an absolute debacle.

Absolutely spot on. Altho' I do feel that Hood has been hogtied and hamstrung to some extent because of the above.

Not sure your'e right there and perhaps being a little harsh on the T&A. Sure YP had Coulby but T&A had Caisley - bigger fish. There won't have been any press releases from the club. If they had they would have been on their website.

People keep saying that we "need to know this" or that Hood "needs to come clean on that" or that the Board "need to explain the other".

We would very much [ilike[/i to know, but we don't [ineed[/i to know, as it is clear that we just never will know, yet life will go on. To the last death throes, communications remain lamentable, but I now accept that that is just how it is, and 95% of whatever goes on, nobody has any intention of ever telling me.

If the result is that the club goes into oblivion, and if a new entity rises from the ashes, then my proposal for the name of the new entity is Bradford Mushrooms, as clearly we are fated to be kept mostly in the dark, and fed shi[size.[/sizet.

perhaps, in recognition of the jovial bonhomerie of the main players in the power play, we could become Bradford Fun Guys?

It was ever thus and always will be. The way people bang on about 'being informed' you would think we were always given a line by line run down of all the club's business until recently. We never, ever have been. The directors have always kept their cards very close to their chests - just as they have to, as it's the only way you [ican [/irun a business.

TBH if we were successful nobody would really care much about being informed. I remember it being pretty much the case when I was in BISA between 2001 and 2004. Not many fans gave a monkeys what was going on at the club or how supporters might get a voice because the club was winning on the field.

Similarly if a new backer turns up with a few quid, makes the club safe, keeps the young players and presides over a steady recovery then the calls to be more involved will likely evaporate.

Can't argue with that, Bullseye.

I long for the days of mostly winning rugby and not caring who's running the club.

Pardon my ignorance but BISA is that?
BISA British International Studies Association
BISA British International Spa Association (UK)
BISA Black Women in Sisterhood for Action (Washington, DC)
BISA Battlefield Information System Application (Defence Digitisation, UK)
BISA Berkeley Indonesian Student Association
BISA Business Information Systems Association
BISA Business Integrity Systems Assessment
BISA Biometric Identification System for Access (US Army)
BISA Built-In Self Analysis
BISA Battlefield Information System Applications
BISA Bonding and Insurance Specialists Agency (Bridgeview, IL)
BISA Best IRIG (Inter-Range Instrumentation Group) Source Algorithm (global posisitioning system synchronization)

Tongue in cheek