Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 9:25 pm  

SEE AUP - BP

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 9:37 pm  

Edited in light of the above being removed - BP

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 9:54 pm  

Ditto above - BP

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 9:59 pm  

Whilst I don't give a rats ass about more infighting, could a mod please change the title of this thread to something more accurate, including the words rumour or allegedly at least? as its not true yet and just vexed me off when I went online as I view this site for any news on this every day.

If its true tomorrow at 10 then fine, change it back no problem, but its going to p!ss me off every time I view the site until we know.

edit, vexed off...nice, first time I've seen that tool in action on my posts.

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 10:08 pm  

Duckman wrote:

Whilst I don't give a rats ass about more infighting, could a mod please change the title of this thread to something more accurate, including the words rumour or allegedly at least? as its not true yet

Indeed. I notice there is a thread on the Wakey forum stating the 'The Bulls site' is saying that administrators have been appointed.

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 10:36 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

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.

That's fair enough. Good to see reasoned argument reassert itself.

My view is different in that I was (and remain) desperate to see the club avoid administration. Blind chance kicks in once that happens, and I really could not see how administration would solve anything financially. Still can't. If Caisley DID have investors who would not invest until Hood and Bennett stood down, well the pledge bought time so they could stand down or be removed, and so any such impediment has now gone.

By calling in the pledges, the old board avoided immediate administration. That action bought time for work to be done on a more sustainable financial settlement going forward. Whether it was to be under the auspices of the old board, or a new board, was and remains pretty academic in my book (and still is) provided we stay out of administration.

Should it ever transpire that avoiding administration was only ever a fools' hope, then I will join you in taking issue with the old board. At present, as you know I have an issue with Caisley for making the internal battle public at such a crucial time. It would seem from the letter that Caisley did not believe administration could be avoided under Hood, from my reading of it, but so far we remain in business. And the longer we remain so, the greater the hope must surely be that we will remain so?

Caisley will surely have known that convening an EGM to remove Hood and Bennett could not be done before the likely timing of appointing administrators? If so, and given the seeming intransigence of all parties he must surely have realised that Hood was unlikely to go until forced? And also, if administration was just a week away how did he himself propose to avoid it if Hood had resigned on the spot? There may be answers to these questions, but - like the question you raise - at present we are not party to them. I doubt we will ever be.

In the circumstances, therefore, I would have expected Caisley, minded as he clearly was to have a reckoning, to have said something like:

"OK, you believe you have a better chance than us of keeping the club out of administration; and you have left us sod all time anyway to do anything about it on our own account - we'll deal with that later. Go ahead then and save the club - if you believe you can. And in public, and to these outside investors you claim you have, we will not oppose you. If you fail, we'll string you up and you should expect no less. If despite our expectations to the contrary you should succeed, then once the funding IS in place we will have a day of reckoning about how we got to this situation. And it is extremely likely that you will be removed from office anyway. But at least you will still have your shares, and there will be less reason for us to consider suing you."

Or even something less hostile.

Had he done so, I could have little issue with him. Him and his group owned the majority of the shares, and within reason were entitled to act accordingly - and a situation had been presented to him where he probably had little choice but to take some action.

But its seems it never happened. And until it becomes clear why it did not, and why he chose to go public when he did, my main gripe since the pledge was announced is with Mr Caisley. Before then is a different issue.

Hopefully, until such time as more information becomes available we can continue to agree to differ, and reasonably amicably?

Re: Administrators appointed : Thu May 31, 2012 11:19 pm  

If this is true you can't help but feel that a newco would have been a damn sight better with 500k in the bank to start with. I.e. If things were that bad the administrators should have been called in weeks ago.

Re: Administrators appointed : Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:18 am  

Jimmybull wrote:

If this is true you can't help but feel that a newco would have been a damn sight better with 500k in the bank to start with. I.e. If things were that bad the administrators should have been called in weeks ago.

Leeking at the previous messages coming from the club it appears they were but the pledge 500k would slow the process down and allow time for investment. I believe the investors will be there but will not want to take on the debt. The losers if this is the case will be those who are owed money and of course those who paid into the pledge (however as it was voluntary and to support the club you love its never a loss)

It was always going to be difficult and hindsight is always superior but perhaps the club should have gone then, that said there is nothing official yet on this just rumours and texts?

Good luck Wakey went through it and whilst our team may not be in top form the club has had a dramatic turnaround and hopefully more good news to come in less than 3 weeks.

Re: Administrators appointed : Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:27 am  

Adeybull wrote:

No, if by that you suggest I was being partisan, since I specifically referred to both camps doing it.

Yes it did. But not from within the club. From nowhere near the club. For that reason, I will tell you by PM where it came from, if you wish, but will not breach confidentiality on a public forum.

No. I have been critical of both camps. You can see me being so even today, on here. Playing you game, I could say it may not suit your purposes for that inconvenient truth to be stated, but I have. Not least in both helping to write, putting my name to, and standing behind on here, the last Bullbuilder statement that I recall at the time you applauded.

You can have no idea whether the old BoD's failure to refute the selective allegations coming from the Caisley camp is because they "dare not" or because they "choose not to" or because they "are advised not to". Neither can I. So don't go stating things and attributing to me views that suit what is clearly your own partisan argument when you can neither support nor justify them.

Don't patronise me. I am quite capable of forming my own views and, unlike you it seems, amending or changing those views if further information comes to light. And you in turn make your own views quite clear by how you word that sentence. No objectivity there, you hypocrite.

And I have stated categorically that what I post on here is what I think. It is not what someone else tells me to say. If you are saying I am a liar - and I am not - please for once be honest and say so categorically. And prove it.

If you are going to call me pathetic on a public forum, then I have no qualms about calling you biased and dishonest.

I do not know who the leaker is. Do you? When the letter was first posted, your reaction on here was quite clearly one of someone who assumed the leak was from the Caisley camp. I'd normally preface that with "IMO" but, following your lead, I'll just post it as a statement. I of course have no idea what you actually assumed, but that has never stopped you from stating what I must have assumed or intended or known.

My first assumption - and unlike you I'm quite happy to be honest - was that it was from within the Caisley camp, since it seemed clearly to me to be setting the scene for a "well we tried, but you can see what we had to deal with and they refused to listen" PR campaign in support of subsequent actions. As I said.

Seeing the subsequent posts by him puts the motives in a new light, and suggests my original deduction was incorrect. (Have I ever seen you admit you may have been mistaken?). Indeed, I have a strong suspicion now who it is. But that has happened TODAY. And I could be just as wrong as I was before.

It could be someone originally from the Caisley camp who is unhappy with how matters are turning out; it could be someone who feels that the actions of the Hood administration have been misrepresented; it could be someone who feels their position is at risk under a new administration; it could be none of the above, just someone who has been sent the information anonymously (and it happens - go ask Bullseye about things like that with BISA and the "back to Odsal" business).

I have my own idea, but I most certainly do not know. Nor do some other people who have a lot more reason than me to wish to know, one of whom I was speaking to only an hour ago. Do you know something that we do not? If you do NOT, then your own comment is as pathetic as you believe me to be.

No, you specifically referred to the 'new lot' playing to the public gallery.

How do you square stating that the charge was disputed from within the club yet then tell us it wasn't from within the the club, 'From nowhere near the club'. I don't want a PM as I've been consistent in arguing that this type of private briefing to selective posters who'll tow the party line has been damaging and purposely misleading. I've lost count of the number of times you've fell back on the 'someone' has told you in a dark corner when the available evidence hasn't quite fitted together.

No, you haven't been critical of both camps, the Bullbuilder statement withstanding you have gone to extraordinary lengths to present the case for Hood and Co, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Neverthless, every man is allowed to believe what he wants and state it as he wants. What is slightly galling is this utter pretence of evenhandedness, this speed to lecture others on being partisan or biased, these grandfatherly warnings that we are being selectively briefed when you have been at the heart of a message board campaign to present the previous boards argument and by the very volume of your posts, dominate that argument. The charge of dishonesty and disingenuousness is laughable coming from a naked propagandist.

Your claim to change your mind is similarly risible. You have simply shifted your feet as the ground beneath you has fallen away. Ostensibly you are putting the precise same case you've made (in what must be millions of words) three years ago when I and others said the BOD should resign. What you've actually done is develop ever more sophisticated narratives to defend a man you called Duke Peter of Hood the week he gave away the lease on the ground to cover the debts he told you at a fan's forum the club didn't have. If I recall you gave me a good telling off that week as I pointed out just how absurd that story was.

On the leaker, by the time you responded at length yesterday afternoon it was obvious which camp they were in.

Re: Administrators appointed : Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:33 am  

Jimmybull wrote:

If this is true you can't help but feel that a newco would have been a damn sight better with 500k in the bank to start with. I.e. If things were that bad the administrators should have been called in weeks ago.

That was always my problem with the pledge. If things were as bad as Hood was saying then it seemed better to go into administration and then ask the fans to support newco. The fans could only be asked to pledge once and a pledge that ended up throwing the fans money down the drain would always be the worst possible outcome.

In the end I pledged, albeit very reluctantly, out of a combination of guilt and because I took Hood at his word that the extra £500k would be forthcoming.