Chris Caisley is still the largest shareholder isnt he?

No idea, thats why I asked, if that is the case, then it is more understandable why they would take this action, maybe if that had been made clearer from the start, fewer people would have questioned it

Yes he is. And I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Yep Caisley is the majority shareholder by some distance.

He is the largest at 26%. Not the majority.

The board collectively hold about 7%.

Not much ' control ' there then, who's got the cash? , the board or the shareholders ?

No control at all. Control as in who can appoint the board is in the hands of directors who retired last year and the Club President. They seem content to back Hood over Caisley.

Do you understand how companies work? Surely with your background you must? Neither got "the cash". The company was the party to the lease with the council, and the company will have received the consideration paid by the RFL. Assuming it has actually been paid and is not a loan from the Bulls to the RFL.

The board control the company. The shareholders decide on the board. But you know all that?

The RFL need to buy them a new team

All very strange, most companies/clubs have the directors as majority shareholders, or of course the shareholders elect the board ( but quite often would vote on issues like this ) in large companies

By who had the cash, I meant, was it the boards to use as and when needed ? ,or paid out as a dividend to the shareholders?

They're saving that for the 2013 season

That would certainly make Wednesday's fans forum a bit more interesting!

Northern/Bulls never have had one individual in control. The board used to have control but no longer due to retirements etc. The extent to which this reflects in the present circumstances is unclear. What is quite clear to me, and has been for years, is that the current situation is unstable and will eventually have to be rectified. In other clubs this has been resolved by the arrival of a sugar daddy or by insolvency. We seem unable to attract the former, just predators who would seemingly use the club as a means to an end and starve it of resources and investment. I was told how much one predator said could be spent of the salary cap. You would be apalled.

The club has already stated publically, and I have been told personally, that the funds will be retained within the business as additional working capital. There could never be any question of a dividend, for a raft of reasons.

So a bail-out then?

Are you being deliberately thick?

if you need bailing out, you have bills to pay that you are unable to pay. So you spend the bailout money.

If you do not need bailing out, you retain the cash in the business for when you may need it. Which might be for investment for the future, even.

The bulls have said the cash will be retained in the business and not spent. And especially not spent on players, they said.

Is there any part of that that is unclear?