Further:



The above address is also that of Brearley and Co, Accountants



Hmmmm

Presumably his accountants? Given it is quite normal for small companies to have their accountants address as the registered office.



He was born 2 June 1951, btw.



Should be pretty clear from the above and other earlier information that Caisley effectively went part time at WM around his 60th birthday (when he became a "consultant"icon_wink.gif - and I had anyway heard that independently. This will presumably have freed up a fair bit of his time from then onwards, to engage in or develop other activities.



He's obviously registered a personal services company, to operate as a consultant through (nothing unusual about that, I have the same albeit I'm not using it at the moment). CSC = his initials, Christopher Stuart Caisley, presumably.



The current tale as told to me and others, from sources I would regard as pretty close to him, is that he is supposedly not "part" of any of the current or prospective bids. But that if one of them was to ask him to act as a consultant in some rugby-related capacity, doubtless he would consider offering his services. There has been so much disingenuous comment on the question of his involvement or otherwise that I think it best that everyone form their own conclusions on the subject.

Given all the additional free time that Christopher Stuart Caisley seems to have at his disposal, perhaps he would spend a couple of minutes telling us what exactly he hoped/intended to achieve by making his statement about the then Board in April ...... and not saying a word since.

The more we hear about things, the more bizarre the involvement of some of the influential people with an interest in the club, becomes.



Of course, it ain't over 'until the fat lady sings', and there may yet be a brief coda with a sting in the tail...

RL Express reports that they believe Khan / Sutcliffe bid is favoured. They "understand" it involves unconditional offer to buy at £150,000 and will agree to take smaller amounts of Sky money for next 12 months " to pacify ...objections to a club offloading debts then continuing to receive full distribution".

Also says whilst agreement to keep 14 teams, other clubs outside SL will also be able to compete for license

So are they suggesting a newco? Or is the "off-loading" to be done via a CVA?



Sounds a bit like a newco as, so far as I know, no-one else has yet had to drop monies for entering a CVA, though neither have I heard of any objections to any other club's future income in previous cases. If it turns out to be a CVA it will still have to be agreed (if indeed the creditors do agree) so it's far from done and dusted.

CVA not likely as the shares in Oldco would stay where they are now.

New investors would want the shares - Newco would give then that

£150k don't seem a lot, perhaps the lower sky money is to sweeten the RFL who are probably owed 1 years rent already on Odsal by the bulls.....HMRC may still have a say on the final outcome

That's the elephant in the room I think. Unless all these shenanigans mean it's no longer a problem (which I doubt).

My take would be that if the club is sold then the old debts would still need to be 'sorted' but with a winding up and newco the debts would be gone, but I'm not the best to ask..



What I'm a bit at a loss with is what happens to the shareholding. Bobsmyuncle, in a reply to my previous post, seems to suggest that anyone buying the old business is left with the old shareholding if they go through the CVA. I confess that I thought once the administrator sold the business then it belonged to the new people and the old shareholders were gone - at the end of the day their shares were worth less than the debt anyway.

And of course any Newco would cancel out ALL existing contracts - not just those 18 that are OOC this year.

Heard K/S only bid being considered and they have offered far more than RLE say. The question is...can they back up their talk with substantial £?