Hear! hear!

And you've established all this without knowing who he is, what duties he held or undertakings he made, where he got the information from, whether there's a word of truth in his claims, or what his motives are other than informing people who are collectively being asked for 500k -£1million?



Good luck in court.

I've argued that the best way of dealing with the awful mess both with the board of directors and shareholding which hates each other is to enter administration. I've stated for years that where we are now is an inevitable consequence of a dysfunctional club and whilst a fearful prospect, the process of adminstration is the only way to scourge the club of the two warring factions, both of whom have put themselves before the club and its fans IMO.

I had thought the same myself.



In fact, I might have a go at my own appeal, on the premise that I'll shed light on things later.



I've seen the latest accounts, but to be honest, you can't draw any conclusions from them as to the specifics of the debt.

Not posted for ages due to too many posters full of dunga. But it's becoming crystal clear that Hood's propaganda machine is in full swing through certain posters who seem to believe everything that he says.

You have. And it would be. Concur on both points.



Where you and I seem to disagree is about the consequences of administration relative to the benefits the scourging would bring. I fear the worst, and also am strongly opposed to businesses going bust, taking the taxpayer and other (often small, local) creditors for a load of money - then rising from the ashes as if everything was right with the world. Its not IMO - its morally wrong and tantamount to theft. I accept though not that many share that second POV, but I feel strongly about it and, being a stubborn sod, I remain unmoved about trying to avoid administration if at all possible.



Just a bit surprised why you came out in support of Caisley ahead of administration the other day? Unless you share my view that Caisley would probably put it into administration anyway?

Exactly

(FAO: M@islebugs) ....and yet you give the [iimpression[/i that you believe him......







as it neatly fits your perceptions (rightly or wrongly) of the current BoD.



Why would anyone take the time and trouble to reply to the unsubstantiated writings of an internet keyboard warrior who has provided no shred of evidence whatsoever. I know I wouldn't and so do not expect Hood to do so. One assumes that this accusation coming out after the Bulls ask supporters to pay up following the pledge is a pure coincidence and that the accusations couldn't have been mentioned earlier? It is the timing of these "revelations" that I do not trust - not necessarily the message.

i.e. You don't know. That must rankle.

The problem is that even though we've given them £500k we've got very little to show in terms of leverage. I'm sure there are plenty who believe we have the moral right to have some say, but I'm afraid that might not count for much. Similarly we have been assured by a number of people that the Board wouldn't call on the pledges unless they were 100% certain they could find the remaining £500k, however the Board had already assured us we were financially secure post the sale of the lease to the RFL.



I am a bit amazed how passively accepting of the situation most people have been and can only put that down to the great passion for the club that we all hold and the fear that it might disappear. But I still think the idea that we can fix the ownership structure after we've saved the club is just wishful thinking rather than being based upon any practical idea of how that can be achieved. Personally I don't want either Peter Hood or Chris Caisley in control and believe we've shown it could be democratised given the willingness of fans to put their own money in, so I'm not sure why we have to believe our choices always come down to picking between two men, both of whom appear to me to be incompetent.

The point is that GB is usually completely spot on in anything he says and he is usually proven right. Result? He gets slated by some who just cannot accept that they are not as clued up as they they think they are.



The same could be said for others like myself, B4C and Redeverready for our "misdemeanors" in the past.



Curious......

Because we were assured that administration meant the loss of the clubs players as no other option had presented itself. In light of this I'd prefer Caisley to the present board and have pledged out of emotion rather than reason.