Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 6:22 pm  

debaser wrote:

Because it's been taken under false pretences.

If we had been asked to contribute £100 to see another 5 games of rugby before administration, then fine. I would have still be happy to do so. But that's not what we were told is it? We were told that the pledges would not be called in, etc, yada, yada...
So we were lied to.
Oh no, sorry, no we were not lied to ever were we?

If administrators are appointed, it will be the new BoD not the old.

And, as Northern Relic observes, not necessarily for just financial reasons.

Surely your ire should be directed at the new BoD should that transpire? Since you can have no idea whatsoever whether, left to their own devices, the previous BoD would have appointed or been able to carry on.

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 6:36 pm  

Paul124897 wrote:

I have a sneaky feeling this could be a windup. I guess we'll see tomorrow or Wednesday though.

wonder what gives you that sneaky feeling? wouldnt be OP's history of starting rumours that turn out to have no substance would it? thomas cook and asotasi to name a couple

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 6:39 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Surely your ire should be directed at the new BoD should that transpire? Since you can have no idea whatsoever whether, left to their own devices, the previous BoD would have appointed or been able to carry on.

And that very over-zealous caveat outlines precisely as to how thoroughly misguided you have been over a period of months as to the current predicament.

As for your attempted pull-up of Maiselbugs' very logical and accurate observations of your fog-ridden deduction and "inside knowledge", what a dire repost and mitigation for your standpoint. The foot stamping "do not say this", "do not do that" is quite spectacular toy throwing. You are the very point of origin for deductions and assumptions. Your irony is quite beautiful.

Your defence of the previous BoD defies belief. Similarly your spurious claim to be self-aware as to your admittance of 'error' is equally fog-ridden. Camp Caisley have made very few public announcements and yet you have utilised your (some may say jaundiced) knowledge of all things legal to smokescreen some of us less learned with what the "actuality" is, when, on the contrary, it most certainly is not. You have concluded and deducted at every point in the last few months. For you to play Speaker of the Commons and Mr Objective when it now suits your narrative, is farcical.

Maiselbugs has simply tied you in knots as to your assumptions and deducations. You have bagged the current review team before you even know the outcome. And done so with high moral ground that would rival Everest. And that, more than anything, is quite ridiculous.

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 6:51 pm  

He has done no such thing. And I thought I made it clear that the tone of my response was merely to reflect his own. If my post is "dire", it speaks volumes for the style of he whose approach I merely emulated.

Your own bias has been and continues to be so totally extreme as to grant you no grounds for criticising the standpoint of others.

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 7:32 pm  

Whilst the defence is admirable, it is going down faster than the Concordia. The club mouthpiece is looking foolish once more yet just cannot accept it. It seems anyone who takes issue with this clown is "dishonest". Actually, they are just speaking the truth.

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 7:48 pm  

BEFORE things degenerate too far on yet another thread please read Bullseyes' opening bit here viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458510. Ta. BP

BEFORE things degenerate too far on yet another thread please read Bullseyes' opening bit here viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458510. Ta. BP

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 7:53 pm  

If its true feel very sorry for the fans that put money into the club a few weeks ago to try and save Bradford. This is the reason I wouldn't put any money in when Wakefield were in the same position.

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 7:55 pm  

OI YOU

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 8:36 pm  

Administrators!? What a load of rubbish, the truth is polar opposite - have patience people

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 9:03 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Surely your ire should be directed at the new BoD should that transpire?.

Peter Hood said he would only call in the pledge if he was reasonably sure that the extra £500k would be raised. He made that statement knowing that there was a degree of hostility on the part of the major shareholders. He should only have made that statement and called in the pledge if he had good reason to believe that the major shareholders hostility would not be a barrier to new investment.

That was the reason why I pledged and it hasnt happened. It may turn out that he was justified at the time in making that statement and calling in the pledge. But until that becomes clear, my main gripe is with the old Board.