a couple of things strike me about the articlethe obviousness and immeadiate willingness to blame the old board before the actual review is finnished, the lack of credit to the good things they have done ie the tong training,harris settlement gone(althoufh that would implicate them) etc but moat worrying for me is the confirmation from the rfl that caislwy could come back and play an important role in yhe future when he so liked.not good for coulby and agar unless they already want to be the fall guys.





also why should these potential investors believe that once the present board is not to be trusted and we will noy input wour cash until a review is done and we can see finances? caisley had only admin in mind and whilst using previous boards lies and half truths to his own means has spun an even bigger lie to show he is not a fit and proper person acting in the clubs own interest.

I know we'll never know, I'm just suggesting on the balance of probability (to me at least) it seems extremely unlikely.



With regards to FA's point I wondered at the time what Coulby was doing waiting 2 years for a meeting. Clearly each side believed that the current problems were the making of the other and this was irreconcilable.



With regards to Harrisgate, Hood could have accepted liability for the full amount and rang the administrator that afternoon. It was only a claim until he signed his name.

I hate to say this but the whole tenor of the story in the T&A does give the impression of stage managing the 'root and branch inquiry' to suit some desired outcome. I hope I'm wrong, I [iso[/i hope I'm wrong, but it looks very like we are being prepared for the last rites.

Or alternatively, CC could have got them off the hook, they had no investment in place, yet can now blame CC for scuppering their plans.



As you said, noone knows the truth. So we can draw our own conclusions.

If someone wants to prove that it was not lies to me, then I am happy to see the proof.

Otherwise, I will keep feeling that we have been lied today.

Six points minimum.

This is the bit I don't understand, and if someone can clarify, please do. I thought Administration was to deal with liabilities/bills/winding up orders that we can't pay, we have cleared the debts and loans with sales of players, lease, soul, kitchen sink and begging for 500k I thought? The problem now as I understood it, is cash going forward to meet our upcoming "normal" liabilities such as maintenance, wages, tax etc - matching our outgoings with our incomings. How does administration help with that? We could slash the playing costs by selling players out of adminisatation.



Surely, coming out of administration we'd be in the same situation cash flow wise except being a few players lighter, which we could do today without administration. Unless there is a creditor we can't pay that we've not been told of? Am I missing something?

Of course. I always forget that there will be points deduction.



I really hope that if CC takes the club into administration that there is a 3rd party investor who is willing to gazump an attempted pre pack leaving CC, Hood et al with nothing. Schadenfreude. That'll teach them to use our club to score cheap points off each other.



Caisley . Stop trying PR smear campaigns and fix this. You wanted the chance to be the saviour- do it!

I wondering this as well

Not really, though. Had he accepted the whole lot without a fight, he would almost vertainly have been in breach of his fiduciary and other responsibilities as a director, quite apart from taking a decision that would have led to immediate insolvency and therefore loss to creditors. The liquidator, funded no doubt by the Creditors' Committee led by Council and HMRC, could have taken him and the rest of the board (remember...we had Mr Agar, Mr Bates, Mr Coulby there who collectivley owned far more shares than he did) to the cleaners. IMO.



I agree with you that we need some means of having a clear-out and starting again in terms of ownership. Preferably not involving ANY of the present lot, but no chance of that I fear.

Opinion is fine. Stating someone is lying without proof (even if maybe they were) is potentially defamatory and actionable.

Would admin mean that all current player contracts are null and void? If so, these could all be re-negotiated with more favourable terms for the club rather than the player...... You could say it is a way of dealing with the dead wood/expensive salaries that Hood endorsed – reputedily Platt/Sykes/Scruton if the rumours are correct. Of course the players don’t have to sign on but where exactly would 30 players go at short notice... a few cherries would be picked, the others its either like it and sign or no money for you..... I’m sure the same logic can be applied to all sorts of miscellaneous contracts currently in place.....

Aha!!



There you have it all.



My opinion? FWIW, and the view I formed at the time, was:



1 - £500k to replace the credit lines the club believed (whether with justification or otherwise is academic) they had in place, to save the club from immediate insolvency. That was what the Pledge was for.



2 - £500k (or whatever) shortfall PER ANNUM income vs expenditure. I took it, from everything I heard and deduced, that the avenues the club were pursuiing were to try and plug the INCOME gap EACH YEAR. Since - as you rightly observe - anything esle just did not make sense.



This of course all presupposes that the BoD knew what they were doing and understood the realities of the situation. At the time, I believed that they did. As it is, nothing would surprise me now!