Utterly clueless. Hearing so any rumours it is hard to select any to give credence. If I had to guess, it would be SL but that is based on gut rather than head. Head is waving the white flag.

Seemed all cushty, to me..

Still waiting for HMRC to get involved. Impossible to say until then.

Re Lord Vader: I understand that he stood down as a director of Walker Morris some weeks ago.

That would be interesting if Walker Morris was a company that had directors, but it's not, so doesn't actually have directors. Last I heard he was a Consultant there.

Walker Morris Solicitors is owned by Walker Morris Resources Ltd, of which he was a director until 13 July this year, so ok slight correction. Just wondering if he was freeing up time for whatever.

Does that mean he's no longer a 'Senior Partner' in the firm then?

I don't know how old he is but I'd have guessed he was at least as old as me so might be looking to retirement. I'll include the unreserved apology in the original post just to save time, in case he feels that is an unwarranted slur and defamatory..

Was at the Avenue game at Harrogate yesterday and can confirm the rumour about the BPA bid,A brewery IS involved in the bid

Is it? How does that work? Why does their website not mention any such company?

Walker Morris Resources Ltd
Trading as: Walker Morris Solicitors
Address:
KINGS COURT, 12 KING STREET
LEEDS
WEST YORKSHIRE
LS1 2HL

Business: Solicitors

Legal Information

Company Registration No.: 02893065

Incorporation Date: 31 Jan 1994
18 Years old

Financial Year End: 30 Apr

Capital:£1.00
on 25 Jan 12

Company Accounts
For period ending:
30 Apr 11
Filed on:
07 Dec 11

Chris Caisley was in the year below me at school (no, we weren't mates). He'll reach 62 between 1.9.12 and 31.8.13, can't be more accurate than that I'm afraid.

Christopher Stuart Caisley was def born 1951

Now a director (and as far as I can see the only director) of:

CSC CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Appointment Date: 19/01/2012
Position: Director
Occupation: Director
Company Status: Active


Address:
39-43 BRIDGE STREET
SWINTON
MEXBOROUGH
S64 8AP
GB

Further:

The above address is also that of Brearley and Co, Accountants

Hmmmm

Presumably his accountants? Given it is quite normal for small companies to have their accountants address as the registered office.

He was born 2 June 1951, btw.

Should be pretty clear from the above and other earlier information that Caisley effectively went part time at WM around his 60th birthday (when he became a "consultant"icon_wink.gif - and I had anyway heard that independently. This will presumably have freed up a fair bit of his time from then onwards, to engage in or develop other activities.

He's obviously registered a personal services company, to operate as a consultant through (nothing unusual about that, I have the same albeit I'm not using it at the moment). CSC = his initials, Christopher Stuart Caisley, presumably.

The current tale as told to me and others, from sources I would regard as pretty close to him, is that he is supposedly not "part" of any of the current or prospective bids. But that if one of them was to ask him to act as a consultant in some rugby-related capacity, doubtless he would consider offering his services. There has been so much disingenuous comment on the question of his involvement or otherwise that I think it best that everyone form their own conclusions on the subject.

Given all the additional free time that Christopher Stuart Caisley seems to have at his disposal, perhaps he would spend a couple of minutes telling us what exactly he hoped/intended to achieve by making his statement about the then Board in April ...... and not saying a word since.

The more we hear about things, the more bizarre the involvement of some of the influential people with an interest in the club, becomes.

Of course, it ain't over 'until the fat lady sings', and there may yet be a brief coda with a sting in the tail...

RL Express reports that they believe Khan / Sutcliffe bid is favoured. They "understand" it involves unconditional offer to buy at £150,000 and will agree to take smaller amounts of Sky money for next 12 months " to pacify ...objections to a club offloading debts then continuing to receive full distribution".
Also says whilst agreement to keep 14 teams, other clubs outside SL will also be able to compete for license

So are they suggesting a newco? Or is the "off-loading" to be done via a CVA?

Sounds a bit like a newco as, so far as I know, no-one else has yet had to drop monies for entering a CVA, though neither have I heard of any objections to any other club's future income in previous cases. If it turns out to be a CVA it will still have to be agreed (if indeed the creditors do agree) so it's far from done and dusted.

CVA not likely as the shares in Oldco would stay where they are now.
New investors would want the shares - Newco would give then that

£150k don't seem a lot, perhaps the lower sky money is to sweeten the RFL who are probably owed 1 years rent already on Odsal by the bulls.....HMRC may still have a say on the final outcome

That's the elephant in the room I think. Unless all these shenanigans mean it's no longer a problem (which I doubt).

My take would be that if the club is sold then the old debts would still need to be 'sorted' but with a winding up and newco the debts would be gone, but I'm not the best to ask..

What I'm a bit at a loss with is what happens to the shareholding. Bobsmyuncle, in a reply to my previous post, seems to suggest that anyone buying the old business is left with the old shareholding if they go through the CVA. I confess that I thought once the administrator sold the business then it belonged to the new people and the old shareholders were gone - at the end of the day their shares were worth less than the debt anyway.

And of course any Newco would cancel out ALL existing contracts - not just those 18 that are OOC this year.

Heard K/S only bid being considered and they have offered far more than RLE say. The question is...can they back up their talk with substantial £?

Given that proof of funds was one of the things the RFL wanted to see by the last deadline* I'd assume they had provided sufficient evidence that the money they were offering was there if they haven't been dismissed out of hand.

*I use the word deadline in the loosest sense of the word since every deadline we've seen has been flexed/extended/ignored.