He is the majority share holder, so therefore the other one too I guess.

OK, some points.

1. Its in the Sun.

2. If its from Parker, remember he gets much of his stuff from the interested party having a word in his ear. Maybe we've just seen a bit of kite-flying by Caisley? Some of what came out from him during the Burgess business seemed to be disingenuous at best.

3. Its in the Sun.

4. Caisley holds 26%, so can block a Special Resolution. The Board collectively control rather more than 50%, and so collectively they control the company. For the report to say Caisley, the largest individual shareholder, is the "majority shareholder is either an error or disingenuous bordering on untruth.

5. Its in the Sun.

6. Despite so much going tîts-up in the later years of his tenure, and the legacy that bequeathed his successors to sort out, for heaven's sake lets take nothing away from the outstanding progress the club made under his stewardship in the years leading up to all that. Without his vision and drive, we'd never have been in the position to have such a high place to fall from.

7. Its in the Sun.

8. the only reason we were able to continue at the level we did in the last years of Caisley's reign was because they spent the Odsal settlement money, meant to cover the period to 2019, at a truly alarming rate, living well beyond our means. Had something not been done, the club would have folded financially several years ago.

9. Its in the Sun.

10. Harrisgate did more damage to the club than almost anything else you can imagine. Whether Caisley regrets what many saw as his obsession with getting one over on Leeds (and they were just as bad!) who knows? But remember, the Tesco/Sterling Capitol stadium project falling through also did immense harm, especially to the club's potential to increase its corporate and sponsorship income. And it was hardly Caisley's fault that other clubs were bought by your Davys, McManuses, Caddicks, Morans, Wilkinsons, Lenaghans, Whelans, Hudgells etc of this world - all of whom seemed to have the wherewithall to pump usually millions into their club. Whether someone of such ilk might have bought into the Bulls had Caisley not been at the helm we will never know.

11. Its in the Sun.

12. As Sam says, diplomacy was not Caisley's strong point. History has maybe shown that, over time, you make more headway working with people than against them. Especially when you are up against salesmen-types who talk the talk rather than just say it how it is.

13. Its in the Sun.

I agree with these excellent points.

Much of causes of the slump (if not the debacle of the capitulations last season) can (I'd better say IMO) be attributed to the financial and academy pipeline situation when Caisley left office. The implications of those situations took a good time to fully manifest themselves. So the present board, whilst hardly totally blameless, catch the cräp for the situation they largely inherited, without yet getting the credit for the actions taken to redress the situation.

The history books will no doubt be somewhat kinder to most of Caisley's tenure than some are allowing on this thread, and also somewhat kinder to the present board than too many yet allow.

Good to see someone at least managed to sift out the real coded message from in amongst all the distractions and smokescreens...!

Is that based on beating Cas & Salford or your last 5 years' SL positions?

both plus the general improvement in squad and youth coming through.

I will ask my great friend & confident Mr ME whether your optimism is slightly premature.
Is this the same Bradford Bulls who were in terminal decline after an ass-whupping by the mighty 'S' just three weeks ago?

thats was only according to the moe negative posters. I'd be more worried about cas's terminal decline tbh

Although, as Adey says, it is in The Sun and therefore perhaps we can take it with a pinch of salt, this has been news within the corridors of a certain local radio station for a while now.

I recall the immense success that we had under Caisley, but it came at a price under his cavalier financial mis-prudence. Running the club into hugh debts without thought for it's sustainable future is not "vision"
I also recall that when the impact of this became evident he promptly jumped (what he considered) a sinking ship.
It has taken some time and great effort from Hood and his Board to avoid the impending financial catastrophy that his predecessor ratted out of.
We have seen a prudent rebuild of the club's finances over the last few years where unpalatable decisions needed to be made. This strong administration have done that to ensure the club's survival.

I heard it was in the T & A aswell. Dunno if that's true or not because I dont have a hard copy of it.

I did hear a rumour that the reason Caisley stood down when he did was because he knew the Harris case was unwinnable and combined with the other debts the club were looking at meant that the future at Bradford likely had a winding up order in it and his plan was to step in at the 11th hour and bring the club back in a similar style to when the broncos went out of business (new company, no debt) and be hailed as a hero. but unfortunately under Hood the club have limped on and started to turn themselves around off field

Of course it is not. After all, wins against Cas and Salford back to back are proof of a great side. Now that we view these as good wins rather than a routine two points like we used to it shows that we are on the way up.

In fact, we now have almost as many World Class players as Wigan have.

and we all know how that game turned out dont we Eddie

I'm not worried about either tbh. These things are cyclical. I concern myself with the general health of RL, not individual clubs fortunes.

OK,
so if this thread is correct, people would have exchanged 10 years of success for mediocrity or non existence, rather than "living beyond our means" and having success??? REally??

If it were not for the success that Caisley brought then we would not be here now! literally, we would be Bradford Northern, playing infornt of 6000 and struggling to stay afloat.

The Harris case, and an obsession with winning at almost any cost, seem to have tainted people's view of him. Yes he isnt rich, but neither is Hood. No he wasnt a diplomat, but at least he isnt anonymous like Hood. perhaps, if their ego's permit, they could form a very good combination???

Hmm.

Would you rather have the club as it is now, or no club at all?

I just wish some people would realise how serious the situation was (and to an extent still is), and why there was absolutely NO chance that the success of the earlier SL years could possibly continue with the situation as it was.

When Caisley stood down, we faced a ruinous action from Leeds and annual losses of over £0.6m which were totally unsustainable. Another couple of years of that level of losses, and we'd have been stuffed regardless of Leeds. If what Roofaldo says earlier has any truth in it (and I have no idea one way or the other) then that casts a whole new (and very sinsister) light on things anyway.

Its all very well pointing out (rightly) the tremendous things Caisley did for the club in his earlier years. But that cannot distract from the disastrous situation he left it in when he stood down. Its not how you start that counts, its how you finish, and it would seem Caisley left the remaining board with a desperate situation to turn round. IMO, it is to their great credit that they managed it, and maybe dashed a few others' hopes along the way. Why would they now wish to turn to the guy on whose watch the disaster arose?

A famous quote is that "All political careers end in failure". I suggest the same applies to RL club chairmen...?

I dispute none of this, but my point is that without Caisley's earlier years, the end would have been around a lot sooner. The fact that he negotiated a settlement with the council for Odsal, effectively getting us money to go back, may have been short termist, but how many of us would ve been filthy at him if we'd stayed at VP, or worse, go out of the city?

I take nothing away from all of that - and I am sure you are right with your first sentence. My own point is that we have to move on - past success, achievements and glories will not help us going forward. And - if the reports are true - it is both a bit rich and more than a bit disingenuous for CC to be seeking a return after the mess has been substantially cleared up.

That said, he holds 26% of the shares, and it cannot be a stable position for the present ownership/no involvement situation to continue.

that was from the article, a good prediction!

Personally, I feel that Caisley coming back would be a backward step, but didnt feel that he was being given much credit for the good he has done!

In that case, then we are in agreement. I have said myself on here that the disastrous ending to his chairmanship should not stop people recognising the fantastic strides the club took under the much longer period of his chairmanship before then.

No one on here disputes that under Caisley we had a very successful side. But that success was not maintainable with the amount of money the club was bleeding. Had one of the earlier Odsal redevelopment plans actually come off then this may not have been the case. However, his insistance on an unwinnable p!ssing contest with Hetherington almost left us without a club to follow.