Not having a go at you as we are all entitled to an opinion on this one - opinion being all it is for now.

However your attitude which is justified as opposed to Sandal Cats which is equally justified does highlight the difference between the camps.

I think what SC is say or hoping is the same as me however forlorn it may appear for now. I'm hoping that Ted is indeed innocent and has done what he is alleged to have done for good reason. This is not because I support Ted, it's not personal. I think even the most rabid anti Ted poster would be relieved if this all turned out to be a storm in a tea cup.

Why? Because let's remember one thing - this is not about Ted or you or Mopsey or TRB or even my blessed self - its about the club.

If you don't like Ted and you want him out then fine, but it can't be done at the cost of the club and 10 hard years of earning SL status. NO FECKING WAY!

If Ted and the BOD have done wrong then get em out. However they go because they have done wrong not because a section of fans don't like em.

For heavens sake lets take a step back for a few days and see what transpires.

Yes the statement was a poor effort but there is nothing in it you can hang em for. As SC says it's what's not in it that matters. Whilst ever the BOD give politicians answers to simple questions then they are not helping themselves. WE WANT STRAIGHT ANSWERS TO STRAIGHT QUESTIONS - nothing to sensitive just who owns the clubs only asset.

Me personally I want Ted to go regardless of the final outcome. Not for any personal reason - just for the fact that he has lost the trust of all fans - not just the shouters but all fans - and I don't think he will ever regain that even if it turns out he is innocent. That may be unfair but that's life and he/they seem to have lost the plot.

Lets just hope he isn't as bad as some paint him and the chance arises for him to leave with some dignity and the club find a new leadership. Again I don't wish this for Ted out of any personal reason, I wish it for the sake of Wakefield Trinity which isn't Ted Richardson.

We need to move on quickly or we are dead. Lynching Ted won't help either way, I want him out on good terns with the Trinity house in good order. It would appear to be unlikely but it should be what we all want.

ted will want money and not step down for nothing...

Hence i think we will go into admin...

dark clouds are over us now...

I think there is alot more to it, Which will probably come out in due course...

BUT and i hope and we will start to see the light at the end of this long dark tunnel

Sooner the better...

Following on from the points covered by Sandal Cat regarding the 4 suitors. Is there anyone out there with a working knowledge of Administration? If, as seems likely, WT go into adminstration, how do the administrators judge the 'best' offer? Is it based purely on the suitor who offers the largest amount to 'buy' the club - something akin to a secret bid scenario, or can other 'bidders' see the level of other bids?
If it is based on the best offer, then this may not be in the longer term best interests of the club as a lower bidder may have greater resources for the future or perhaps has greater expertise. Anyone?

Well here's the link to the notices that will tell us our fate. We can go into admin anytime up to the hearing or beyond if the hearing gets adjourned. www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/ ... es/1249879

Well here's the link to the notices that will tell us our fate. We can go into admin anytime up to the hearing or beyond if the hearing gets adjourned. www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/ ... es/1249879

The administrator will do whats best for the creditors,although it will be the present board that will choose the administrator !!

rlHope This Helpsrl

Its helped give me headache and i'm only a third of the way through it


Thanks for that.

Chairman: Ted Richardson
Vice Chairman/Finance Director: Eric Timmins
Managing Director: Diane Maskill
Director: Ray Barnes
Associate Director: Richard Venables
Chief Executive: James Elston
Operational Director: Francis Stephenson
Football Director/Head Coach: John Kear

So the statement came from the eight named above? The same eight who claim they will resign if the right offer comes in?

If that happens, will Kear leave too? Or are his two roles (FD / HC) separate contracts?

What is known of the other board members that aren't family? Do others have a grief with all of them, or just the family? Or is a collective gripe against all of them?

Also.. if we went into administration, wouldn't the above names be unable to become directors again for a number of years? Or is that if the company is wound up completely? How does that work?

O'Hara's

Quote: Herbert Splatt "Chairman Check to make sure the final few names are actually "Directors", not senior managers with fancy "director" titles. That is quite common. I haven't checked, but its £1 from www.companieshouse.gov.uk - go to "webcheck". Directors are only banned if their conduct has merited it. It requires a specific formal process. Relatively few directors actually cop a ban, and none should who have acted responsibly. From what I have read about Richardson, its possible he COULD be in trouble - but its premature to judge based solely on what you read on hear or in the papers. My guess is it is very unlikely any of them will. hth ps: just had a quick (free) look: Barnes was appointed in 2008. The first three - have they been on the board a while? for earlier appointments, you can't see the name without paying for a report/document, but the last board change before then was 2001. I would be almost certain that Elston, Stephenson and Kear are NOT Directors, and their positioning on the list suggests that. Venables ditto - and his title "Associate Director" is one regularly used to give someone's ego a fancy title that actually means bugger all. Again, his position on the list gives further support to the point re the other three. If I could be d with spending £1, and pratting about with the hard-work payment a d download process, I could tell you for sure. Surely one of you guys can download the latest Annual Return or the Current Appointments Report?

Quote: Herbert Splatt "Chairman Check to make sure the final few names are actually "Directors", not senior managers with fancy "director" titles. That is quite common. I haven't checked, but its £1 from www.companieshouse.gov.uk - go to "webcheck". Directors are only banned if their conduct has merited it. It requires a specific formal process. Relatively few directors actually cop a ban, and none should who have acted responsibly. From what I have read about Richardson, its possible he COULD be in trouble - but its premature to judge based solely on what you read on hear or in the papers. My guess is it is very unlikely any of them will. hth ps: just had a quick (free) look: Barnes was appointed in 2008. The first three - have they been on the board a while? for earlier appointments, you can't see the name without paying for a report/document, but the last board change before then was 2001. I would be almost certain that Elston, Stephenson and Kear are NOT Directors, and their positioning on the list suggests that. Venables ditto - and his title "Associate Director" is one regularly used to give someone's ego a fancy title that actually means bugger all. Again, his position on the list gives further support to the point re the other three. If I could be d with spending £1, and pratting about with the hard-work payment a d download process, I could tell you for sure. Surely one of you guys can download the latest Annual Return or the Current Appointments Report?

'Managing Director' is such an ironic title. And still, three people with titles which are very similar roles.

director of coaching i believe. Cant imagine he has contributed to the club financially