Perhaps.
Or perhaps games are being played, and we are not being told the truth now either?
Or perhaps the expected income position has worsened since the previous board was ejected, perhaps as a consequence of Caisley making the internecine strife very very public, perhaps becuase of of the continuing and protracted uncertainty?
Or perhaps some further costs have materialised that were not known earlier?
Or perhaps the previous board had plans to plug the gap (e.g selling players) that are not considered practicable by the new board?
Or perhaps the new board feels it needs to err much more on the side of caution, given the circumstances, and so is making more prudent assumptions which may prove over-cautious?
Or perhaps...I could speculate ad nauseum - we all could.
What does come across on here is that the views people seem to hold of the personalities involved - previous and current - very heavily influence the direction and nature of their speculation and opinion as to the honesty, integrity and competence of the various personalities. Which is entirely OK and to be expected. I just hope enough facts and truth finally seeps out to enable us to better judge who the true villains of the piece were - if any - or indeed whether all parties did their best, but that best was still not enough. The victors are the ones who get to write history, of course.
You have clearly been leaning heavily to the new board. I was and remain sceptical of the original motives behind the dismissal of the old board, or of the extent to which Coulby is his own man in this (Agar's motives were I suspect honest and genuine, albeit possibly subject to influence by others?) and not just Medvedev to Caisley's Putin (although I would be very glad indeed to discover my scepticism was misplaced). Remember that Coulby owns hardly any shares now. Equally, the dire straits we were in at the time of the pledge just did not stack up with the funds the club should have received in the immediately preceding few months, without some Higgs Boson of a missing explanation, IMO. Our respective views and speculations are bound to be influenced by the foregoing.
I think I read or was told that Caisley was given financial information a good few weeks ago though - I think before Easter - but only the parties involved will know who received what when, and the extent to which that enabled any kind of objective view to be formed. In the present situation, I know my own reaction would almost certainly have been, and be, one of serious caution and prudence, and I would not take any numbers I received at face value but would check them and the underlying assumptions pretty thoroughly (as I do in much of my day job...), so I could fully understand a prudent and cautious view being taken.
