dont understand why he instigated all the disruption on our club if he didnt have a plan for the rescue many thought he was about to initiate.his shares have become worhless, i presume ,so why would he do that? or maybe we still havent heard the last from him.if he still has ambitions on taking control not sure how that would be received by the supporters or sponsors. he has ripped the club apart for no obvious reason other than his dislike of hood.
really hope it can be sorted soon.one more question.who runs SLE?

The sole directors of SLE are the CEO and chairman of the RFL, so its basically the RFL

I wouldn't like to answer your first question, but my IMO I think this current solution is 'convenient'

Given they board refused to talk to the major shareholders I suspect he didn't actually know the extent of the problems and any intent of a rescue package exceeded his capability. Despite being well off he isn't in the bracket where throwing a couple of million pounds to clear the debts plus a medium term commitment to plug a 1M+ a year shortfall is something he could fund.
Oddly enough he was probably in the same boat as Hood where he'd need to attract outside input and opening up the books to show the full extent of the mess would scare them off. Some common ground for them

Sorry but that doesn't wash. How can someone who owns over 25% of a company allow that to happen.

It's total garbage and pure spin. Hopefully his mate accepts SLE's offer and it allows someone totally different to buy the club. I don't blame him solely all the shareholding are to blame. Ta ta

Given the reported figure we owe has just kept going up since administration maybe Caisley didn't have 2 spare months to go through the figures. I'm not absolving him.of any of his responsibility but how often does someone not involved day to day do a thorough forensic examination. Did the last set of accounts show we owed 1.5m?

Sorry but as soon as P & A were announced as carrying out "the financial review" we were going into administration come what may.

He allowed it to get to a state where the board didn't have a monthly review with the major shareholders for 2 years? Sorry the bloke is as much to blame as anyone else and I aren't swallowing the crap being fed to us.

Like I said hopefully that's the end of Coulby, Caisley, Hood, etc. being involved with the club.

Is it conceievable that he, like Noble, was taken aback by just how vitriolic the negativity toward him was and so decided to walk away? Say what you like about him but he's a person who has put decades of his life into the club which I'm pretty certain is more than anyone else on this forum can say

His shares were worthless - just as they are for the majority of RL clubs. He will have instigated the "disruption" to see if there was any way that he might be able to get some money back (and even then it would have been a small percentage of what he had "invested"icon_wink.gif, but because the debts were much worse than anyone had expected it quickly become obvious that this wouldn't be possible - hence the decision to go into Administration.

I think it's wrong that SL(E) are taking over the club, but once the decision had been taken to release July's Sky money to cover wages they left themselves with no option other than to do so.

It seems that SL(E) are taking on the debt, presumably with each club's share of the Sky money being reduced over the next couple of years to cover this unless a buyer can be found who will take on the "moral responsibility" for the debt. There's now only one real question that needs to be answered - is there someone out there who is prepared to pour £1.5m down the drain just to keep the Bulls in SL & then inject the same amount again to balance the books over each of the next few years?

The only positive from that would be that you would be getting taken over by someone who is prepared to put the Bulls over their own wallet. Equally, I think you could probably count the real candidates for doing so on one hand.

I think that though his methods may have been questionable to say the least his ends were re-establishing the Bulls as a successful RL team, which I think they have been since day one.

I understand why people don't want him at the club but we will do well to find someone prepared to take the helm who gets as much right as he did in his time at the club.

My understanding - I was told this, so it is only as good as what I was told - is that Caisley was given "the figures" - financial information, anyway - before the Intervention. As a principal shareholder, he had every right to request such information, so I feel sure he would have exercised that right before making his move? I certainly would have, in his position. Whether any figures he was given were complete, accurate or timely I would not know.

But you really should not NEED two months to "go through the figures". Speaking as one who has done precisely this kind of thing, provided you have a half-decent accounting system you need at best two weeks to get the gist of it, with a business on this scale. And at times in the past I have had little more trhan about two (long, hard) DAYS. And most of THAT is usually validating the numbers you have been given rather than doing stuff from first principles.

I simply cannot understand why there was so long between the Eviction and the appointment of administrators. What were they actually doing over the intervening period? Just how long does it take to "carry out a review"? I heard that no-one was seen at Odsal from the New Board (apart from matchday) or their advisors or the people Caisley said would be helping him with the Review, so what exactly was going on over that period? I am sure they must have been very busy though, given the protracted period? That is just as big a question that needs answering, though, as the question of where the balance of the Odsal lease sale money went, I suggest?

At the time of the Eviction, I believe -from my reading of what has been put in the public domain - that there can have been no tax that had not been paid by its agreed payment date. Subsequent to the Eviction, we had the May payroll paid, which generated the (approx £90k?) PAYE due Friday 22 June. Administrators were appointed Tuesday morning Tuesday 26 June, so it would be reasonable to deduce cause and effect there, although I never seen HMRC act so quickly post-default? That said, from what I have read there was a £50k VAT instalment due end of May, and I presume a c.£7k image rights tax payment too since I was told that was payable monthly. Maybe the new board did not meet THOSE payments? Either way, if (as we were told) the Appointment was to seek protection from an HMRC winding-up petition, why did the new board leave it so long, clock up additional PAYE liabilities and perhaps renage on the previously-agreed payment schedules? Surely when Caisley Intervened, and brought about the Eviction, he must have had been aware that these liabilities would need to be paid? And if the new board was unable to pay the end-May instalment payments, why would they go ahead and pay the June payroll? Sure has me confused, but them I am cautious by nature and maybe they had more hopes of a favourable outcome?

The delay therefore does seem to have led to a subsequent tax default, when there was semingly no default at the date of the Eviction, but surely that cannot have been the intention? Who would have any reason to drag it out like that if they were seeking to do the best for the club? And risk personal liability for Trading whilst Insolvent, having been unable to pay over HMRC the PAYE you deducted from employees on a payroll you (not the previous board) had paid? Just does not make sense does it, any of it? And so I am mightily confused by it all. I'm sure that that post-Eviction period must figure in the Administrator's report to the DTI same way as the pre-Eviction period rightly will, just a shame none of us will see it since we might get some answers to the whole saga.

Here is something from what I posted elsewhere, though, that explains how I feel about the Intervention:

My issue with Mr Caisley over all this is quite simple: once Mr Agar had changed sides and he spoke for more than half the shareholding, why did he not say to Mr Hood - in private - "Peter, its like this old son. One of two things is now going to happen: either you appoint several of us to the board - now - so we have a majority round the boardroom table; or we require you to convene an EGM which will so do. Then, as an enlarged board, one of two further things is going to happen: either we work together to solve this unholy mess that on your watch we seem to be faced with, or we will sack you and WE will seek to sort it by ourselves. Which is it to be? And, once we have saved the club - if it CAN be saved, THEN we'll hold the inquiry, and in all probability you will find it necesary to resign. But at least you can say that we collectively solved the problem, you can step down with your self-respect, and - MOST IMPORTANTLY - the outside world, and especially potential investors, will see a united, strong board determined to work together to solve the problem. That would surely present the best possible case to such investors?"

I am not aware that such a discussion took place. But even if it DID, and was rejected, surely then Mr Caisley should have quietly convened the EGM, with the resolution to reappoint him, Messrs Agar and Coulby, and ANO (maybe the respected Gary Tasker) to the board? And then, once appointed, sack those of whom he disapproved?

Instead, he chose to very publically denounce Messrs Hood and Bennett and call for them to stand down, at what could hardly have been a more sensitive time, surely you would agree? A time when his action must have placed Mr. Hood in an impossible position, damned if he did and damned if he did not? Over calling in the pledges, over standing down as Mr Caisley demanded - and remember that letter Mr Caisley had seemingly written to Mr Hood (released into the public domain I asumed by Mr Bennett?), which I suggest to the recipient would read as pretty threatening?

And how could Mr Hood be in any way motivated to build on the incredible response from the fans and the wider RL community to our plight knowing that he would be removed very shortly? What possible authority could he carry with anyone as a lame duck Chairman waiting for the axe? They knew they were going to be removed at the EGM. What surprised me is that they hung on as long as they did. Maybe they remained hopeful of securing investment despite all the impediments, who knows?

And who would seek to invest in a club where its largest shareholder had stated so publically it was a house seriously divided?

I could not possibly support Mr Caisley after that, because it seemed to me that his actions were inconsistent with seeking to secure the best (or least-bad) outcome for the club. And it seems to me that it can be little surprise that the conspiracy theorists went to town over all this. After all, Mr Caisley's actions, however they may have been intended, surely gave them ample ammunition?

What caused this "vitriolic negativity", in your view?

Your first point - so you are of the view that the ends justify the means?

Your second point - Harrisgate aside: without a doubt.

Maybe a bit off topic - but reading through Adey's post above I am just trying to square the current liabilities figure being banded around of £1.5m

At the time of the pledge HMRC were chasing I think PAYE monies which were presumably cleared by the pledge to get HMRC to put their gun away.

So I can see there must be the VAT on the lease sale which was originally to have been paid by installments of £250k, one or maybe two months PAYE 2x£90k = £180k. I assume that the post admin payroll deductions would have been paid over to HMRC by BG. Plus sundry suppliers - though I assume most would have been insisting on cash payments by this stage. But adding these together and even with potential monthly losses I am struggling to get to even half the £1.5m. So are the advances made by the RFL being added to the tab?

you need to add in the 250k image rights settlement agreed with hmrc, to be paid over next 3 yrs Iirc.