Oh the 1907 great betrayal. Those were the days. They did a betrayal properly in them days. Not like these modern betrayals.

I've heard Nigel Wood wants to be the rider for the winning bid,just to make sure it has no chance of succeeding

We may be getting Hoodwinked regarding one of the bids.

Done, ([size=85you have been

[/size) please read the small print below;



Done, Any cash gratefully received towards the "buy Duckman a new phone after he dropped it this morning like a tool" fund

and you can trust me, I dont work for the Bulls or the RFL




Small print;

[size=50print[/size
[size=85odds and your chance of winning are subject to change at the whim of Duckman and the RFL.[/size

Haha are you Ralph Rimmer

Eliciting the same laughable "I am right because its me that said it" response from you is hardly annoying, it is what I was intending our dear troll friends to see. So why are you right when the club and the RFL all in their statements say quite the opposite, that it was one year of funding paid over two years. You seem to be making the same mistake of a lot of wet behind the ears accountants make, of confusing profit effect and cash flow. So what evidence to you have to support your assertion and the arithmetic you did, and the statement that the club should be claiming the over deducted money back ? provide it by PM and I will publicly declare you right on this forum, I am only after the truth, nothing else. I have nothing to be defensive about on this.

Over to you.

Actually, no, I will answer. Because I am FA I am right, whatever I say.







You kid yourself.

Oh sweet lord imagine the implosion we would see on here, so for that reason alone

"Omar give us a wave, Omar, Omar give us a wave"

Don't forget the HMRC because they won't forget you.

Your little vendetta is becoming boring. I am right because I know the facts. They are the same to any person who knows the facts. Not because it's me, but because it is the case.


yes, bit weird that, playing to an audience of trolls. Hmm...


They don't. But if they did, then they would be either mistaken, or lying.


Come again? It is nothing to do with either. You are trying to complicate a simple matter.


It is a fact which i happen to know. If you want to call it an assertion, that's fine, and to you it is both. It is an assertion, because you don't know, but it is also a fact, you just don't accept that. Which is of course your choice. It doesn't matter to me if you don't believe me, please do not think that it does. i only post to inform, people are free to make of it whatever they feel like.


Well, it is probably academic now, as the party which entered into the agreement (OKB) is in no position to do much about it any more. Any new owner who was asked to stump up the balance (as BB2014 apparently were, though no formal announcement was ever made) if by any chance they were persuaded to agree to such a silly thing, should insist on checking the deal so they don't get similarly fleeced.


Would be good though if you could engage brain before further opening gob, son. Your declaration would do nothing to convince any other person who does not wish to believe what I have said, as they would simply demand the same proof you had seen, and so on. So why on earth would you think that YOUR imprimatur would be accepted by the forum, in just the way you rabidly insist mine is not acceptable?




You probably realise now how childish that was, but really, take it or leave it, I don't care.

I hope you're joking.

Ever seen the Monty Python sketch, the 100m for people with no sense of direction?

I remember when the club effectively folded following the Caisley-initiated coup, there was much talk of eventually getting to the bottom of how the finances had got into such a sudden mess, that we all of a sudden needed £1/2m just to exist, but - entirely predictably - not a single fact has ever emerged. No inquiry, no investigation, nothing.

So we have no evidence why that meltdown happened, just that it did, and we know who was at the helm. We know that hood & Co. said they had a plan, and whatever it was, there is no doubt that it was holed below the waterline by the Caisley intervention, but that plan may have been rubbish too. Or it may have had a chance. How to know?

It was said on here that the directors had given personal bank guarantees but that at the time of the £1/2m the bank was paid off, and so the PGs were escaped from. This was so far as I know neither confirmed nor denied, though if it was the bank that was threatening the club then the only obvious way to stop a bank from hitting the destruct button is to pay what you owe. Did anyone read up if the bank was a substantial creditor in the liquidation?

What we can say for sure is that Hood & Co. were in charge when the ship suddenly hit some very big rocks, but how that happened it seems we are not destined to know. And we can all the more so only speculate on what might have been had Caisley not stepped in (and had anyone come up with an even remotely plausible theory as to why Caisley did what he did, when he did it? Has he ever said?) - except to know that we would still have been in the seemingly unmanageable old-shareholder mess that perhaps paralyzed the running of the club. But in these circumstances of ignorance only a fool would choose to board a replacement ship with the same captain.

From a fans' perspective - unfortunately we have no say. Whoever gets it, gets it, and that will be that. If indeed anyone does. What seems clear is, if you were interested in running the club before (as Hood & Co. obviously were) and if you didn't want to step down (as (Hood & Co. clearly didn't) then you would now be able to pick up the whole club debt free for a comparative song, with no shareholders, no debts, and no baggage. For which reason it wouldn't surprise me if the old regime were interested, if they didn't fall foul of the fit & proper RFL test..

At Cheltenham on friday. In addition to the Gold Cup race there will be

The OK Bulls Ltd Selling Plate
The Skymoney Handicap
The SL Points Penalty Hurdle
The Loadsamoney Investor's Chase

But which horse from which stall? Hoods involvement would effect my odds!

Cant wait for this should be some good odds in these new races,

accumulator here i come

Hood v Caisley - who you prefer?

Me neither, been there done that, sold the T-shirt to raise funds!!

A lot of people are still blinded by the success we had under Caisley, I lay the current situation blame firmly at his door - the rot started with him and he was, as FA points out, the one who pulled the plug and sailed us into oblivion.

Hood - who knows, a lot of criticism was aimed at him and rightly so - but just what could have been if he, Bennett and his mystery Chinese consortium allowed to plough on? We will never know..

For me if it was a straight choice between the 2, I'd pick Hood - he wasn't the player agent who persuaded Sam to Souths and his siblings to follow......

The Bulls saga is to be turned into a movie series.

Robbin Hood

Get Caisley!

OK laHoma

The Wrath of Khan

Cashatbanka (not)

Late entry - Whitecut with the missing money.

you missed off

Silence of the Lamb(s)

Raiders of the Lost Cash

'We've no evidence why this meltdown happened'? Would the fact that by the end of 2010 we'd won 1 in 17 and were playing to 7000 fans and by the start of 2011 had to sell the season tickets at half price, have anything to do with it?

Just to add a little further context. By the time Hood stated in early 2012 that despite selling the ground lease and needing a half a million quid to ensure the club weren't liquidated, he'd been in charge for almost SIX years.

When was he going to announce these plans and investors, or was he enjoying the drama?

If I hadn't met him and been convinced he had the club at heart I'd be 100% certain Peter Hood destroyed the club on purpose. Precious little else makes sense.

Jay (Wiley) and silent Bob (Blackburn) strike back

I think Hood and Co were just out of their depth and struggling to come to terms with the costs of Odsal and Harris and the consequences of sticking with McNamara. The season ticket deal was sold to fans as a great idea to bring crowds in but the plan to get them to spend big on other things to make up the difference certainly didn't add up.

Caisley's intervention certainly scuppered Hood's plans for the future but his track record up to that point doesn't suggest it would've been successful - even if Potter had turned the playing side around, it was too late.

No.

No. None of those factors could remotely cause the sort of instantaneous financial meltdown where you have to call for cash donations of half a mill in a matter of days or go to the wall. And 7000 fans is not an unworkable figure to run a SL club. Or if it is then many are unworkable. And we didn't "have" to sell tickets at half price, or any price, but any such sales should be part of a busienss startegy which you would think would be continually montored and reviewed in any modern business so again, would absolutely not precipitate anything rapid.

That sentence doesn't actually make sense, but your general point (six years in charge) is stressing my point for me (thanks) not as you seem to think arguing against it. If he'd been running things for 6 years then I ask again, what on earth suddenly precipitated the huge financial crisis? Very clearly he'd struggle to argue the running over those years had been competent, but my issue is what had actually happened to cause a sudden collapse. That nobody had seen coming?

please don't mistake me for someone arguing hood was some sort of perfect businessman. But again, the answer is - we don't know the answer. We don't even have anybody to ask. Since it all went tits, there has been no inquiries, no interrogations, no reports, nothing.

Yes, but as he obviously didn't do that, then it follows that my point is valid, and seems in essence to be the same as your point. It makes as much sense as what Caisley did.

But we know it wasn't an instantaneous financial meltdown. We know he borrowed £700k in September 2011 and didn't make one single repayment.

You're right on one point. The club didn't 'have' to sell season tickets at half price, or indeed any price. Given the inevitability of what was to follow it hardly mattered that they sold any at all.

I'm not defending CC.