Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:19 am  

paulwalker71 wrote:

Ooooh my thread has got 100 pages

Something else we can thank Caisley for.

Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:21 am  

I think Andrew Bennett may be the dark horse in this power struggle.
Lets wait and see though.

Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:22 am  

Exeter Rhino wrote:

To be honest I think you would be better off without Caisley or Hood, shame there doesn't appear to be another option.

...and there are the horns of the dilemma

I agree we'd be better off without either of them, but there simply does not seem to be another option on the table at this moment in time.

Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:23 am  

[quote="Exeter Rhino"]If Caisley takes over the club stand to lose at lot of the goodwill that Hood & co have garnered from the rest of SL.

Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:29 am  

Exeter Rhino wrote:

If Caisley takes over the club stand to lose at lot of the goodwill that Hood & co have garnered from the rest of SL. If the timing of this proves anything it is that Caisley is still a vindictive sort, putting his own ego first. If he really has the interests of the club at heart he wouldn't have played such an active role in the departure of Sam Burgess (and possibly others). It will only be a matter of time before the feud with Hetherington is re-ignited (or new 'players' such as Pearson at Hull) and you are back in the old cycle. To be honest I think you would be better off without Caisley or Hood, shame there doesn't appear to be another option.

The worst thing about the Harris affair isn't the loss of cash it's the loss of integrity. The fact is he already had a contract with another side in the league. It was simply wrong to try and get one over another team in the league. I thought as a sport trying to grow it's interest we should all be pulling together.

Winning, losing neither matters as long as the game be played a right.

Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:30 am  

MicktheGled wrote:

Why are people automatically assuming that Caisley wants to see us forced into administration??

Because in his position, and without my own moral standpoint about screwing creditors and the taxman that can sometimes be my own worst enemy, I would do the same.

If:

1 - I was confident enough that I had a plan and resources in place such that I could fund the administrator for a few weeks to keep the business intact and not sell assets;
2 - I could tip the wink to the players and Ryan and others that I'd see them OK;
3 - I had already been through all my plans with the RFL, got them onside and got their informal agreement that I was a "fit and proper person" to own a club holding a SL Licence
4 - I had already obtained the RFL's informal agreement about assigning the lease to NewCaisleyBullsCo
5 - I did indeed have a costed plan in place, and that even though I would probably use the Due Dilligence as an excuse to force administration, my plans assumed that;
6 - I had cleared it with the council, and ensured that the administrator would end up with enough realisations to satisfy their charge on the assets (presumably to cover the Odsal settlement run-off and maybe council tax?)

Then, if I did not have to look at myself too closely in the mirror, or at the suppliers and other creditors who I would be screwing over, I would say it made sound business sense for me. Since I would:

1 - Save a load of money by getting rid of some serious tax bills - screwing the taxpayer
2 - Get out of the remaining obligation to repay the council - keeping them sweet by seeing they were (legally) paid in preference to other creditors
3 - Get out of any other onerous commitments and obligations - screwing the suppliers or prioviders of the service
4 - Get rid of all the other shareholders, who would not get a penny
5 - See my revenge on Hood as complete.

That is why.

But I could personally not do that. Which is why I am not a wealthy man, but I can sleep at night.

Did anyone notice that there was no mention of the fans in any of that?

Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:32 am  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

The worst thing about the Harris affair isn't the loss of cash it's the loss of integrity. The fact is he already had a contract with another side in the league. It was simply wrong to try and get one over another team in the league. I thought as a sport trying to grow it's interest we should all be pulling together.

Winning, losing neither matters as long as the game be played a right.

Oh and as much as I love board room politics and find it all exciting it's a bit too much to take when the club I love is days away from possibly going into administration. We should all have woken up positive and should be taking about the fundraising events that are about to take place over the next 36 hours.

I'm only going to talk about the walk tomorrow and the excellent 24 hr push for pledges from the wheelchair rugby team starting tonight. They're something worth giving time too.

Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:36 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Because in his position, and without my own moral standpoint about screwing creditors and the taxman that can sometimes be my own worst enemy, I would do the same.

If:

1 - I was confident enough that I had a plan and resources in place such that I could fund the administrator for a few weeks to keep the business intact and not sell assets;
2 - I could tip the wink to the players and Ryan and others that I'd see them OK;
3 - I had already been through all my plans with the RFL, got them onside and got their informal agreement that I was a "fit and proper person" to own a club holding a SL Licence
4 - I had already obtained the RFL's informal agreement about assigning the lease to NewCaisleyBullsCo
5 - I did indeed have a costed plan in place, and that even though I would probably use the Due Dilligence as an excuse to force administration, my plans assumed that;
6 - I had cleared it with the council, and ensured that the administrator would end up with enough realisations to satisfy their charge on the assets (presumably to cover the Odsal settlement run-off and maybe council tax?)

Then, if I did not have to look at myself too closely in the mirror, or at the suppliers and other creditors who I would be screwing over, I would say it made sound business sense for me. Since I would:

1 - Save a load of money by getting rid of some serious tax bills - screwing the taxpayer
2 - Get out of the remaining obligation to repay the council - keeping them sweet by seeing they were (legally) paid in preference to other creditors
3 - Get out of any other onerous commitments and obligations - screwing the suppliers or prioviders of the service
4 - Get rid of all the other shareholders, who would not get a penny
5 - See my revenge on Hood as complete.

That is why.

But I could personally not do that. Which is why I am not a wealthy man, but I can sleep at night.

Did anyone notice that there was no mention of the fans in any of that?

Most people fell the same you just put it more eloquently

Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:43 am  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

The worst thing about the Harris affair isn't the loss of cash it's the loss of integrity. The fact is he already had a contract with another side in the league. It was simply wrong to try and get one over another team in the league. I thought as a sport trying to grow it's interest we should all be pulling together.

Winning, losing neither matters as long as the game be played a right.

The worst thing about the Harris affair was that Mr Caisley assured us fans (and who knows who else?) that there were no contractual arrangements in place that were an impediment to us signing Harris. Despite Mr Hetherington loudly protesting that there were, and that he had made "the Bulls" aware of them. And Mr Hetherington was subsequently exonerated by Mr Justice Gray regarding the contracts. We have never been officially told whether He was alos right about what "the Bulls" were made aware of before they signed Harris.

This last point seems to me to be crucial, since us NOT knowing seemed to me to facilitate the "Mainstream Developments" defence to an action for inducement to breach contract. if we DID know, despite what Mr Caisley said at the time when IMO he was more worried about a pìssing contest with Hetherington than was healthy, then IMO our defence was likley to be weakened considerably.

I've often wondered whether Mr Caisley would have been prepared to swear on oath that he was never made aware of the pertinent details of the contracts before the signing, and whether Mr Hetherington would have been prepared to swear that he WAS. Because if they BOTH so swore, one of them would surely be purjuring himself? As it transpired, we never got to find out because the Bulls post-Caisley concluded - and I understand after taking full legal advice - that the risks of being found to have been in the wrong, in the face of a £3.2m + costs action, were too great. So we can only make of all that what we will.

All I know is, I believed and trusted Mr Caisley in all he said at the time. And I ended up looking a total fool for so doing.

Re: Peter Hood says Bulls on brink of going bust. : Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:46 am  

Thanks Adey. CC would always be vulnerable to a coalition of shareholders doing this exact same thing once his ego started to get the better of him again. He needs to have more than 25% of shares and the best way is for him to end up with somewhere between 75-100% after administration. (I would assume that Tasker & Coulby et al would get a few shares in return)