Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:07 am  

PieBull wrote:

Walker Morris advised P&A Partnership on the administration of Plymouth didn't they? Correct me if I'm wrong.

If this is correct, I'm sure there will no doubt have been other dealings between the two companies.

So much for BG being an 'independant' reviewer. And yet I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that he is linked to CC.

Correct. Walker Morris were the Solicitors on the P and A team led by Guilfoyle. I say led, I mean when he bothered to show up.

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:20 am  

I love all the know it alls in the pro caisley camp with there selective hearing who cry fowl when someone objects to there ramblings on why hood did what he did! In an ideal world hood could have turned round a sinking ship and appease every one in the meantime (no mean feat when you have a fomer chairmen and biggest shareholder hoping his endeavours fall short)

If you like it or not caisley put us into admin not hood (at his second attempt so I've heard) so in reflection hood kept his part of the bargain!

Hood wasn't perfect and probably made some nieve decisions, probably helped all the way by Ryan duckett, wonder what hese doing now.

Has another poster had said to the victor the spoils, patronising and condesending posts!

Oh crap I'm looking back can't do that now all apologies to the know it alls, how dare I?

Thanks adybull in trying to explain to us laymen all the propaganda and spin (not just on these boards) but everything bulls wise in general!

Back in the box I go!

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:40 am  

I am very much not pro Caisley! Read my previous posts. Its about a balance. those who blame just Hood, are just as wrong as those who blame just Caisley!

Blame isnt getting us anywhere! Look forward not back!

Yes in an ideal world, Hood would have saved the sinking ship that he inherited from Caisley. But if he'd have been more open and honest about how quickly we were sinking, perhaps more could have been done!

If we'd been busily bailing out, then we might have turned the tide, but we werent, and by the time we started bailing, the bridge was underwater!

I, like many on this forum, have had many exchanges with Adeybull, and have benefitted from his knowledge and experience in the financial field, and his discussions with the then board. much respect to him. he's unafraid to change his view based on new revelations. Its not a climb down, infact its a climb up to a position of more knowledge!

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:47 am  

isaac1 wrote:

You learned of his intentions from a man who was close to being ousted by him, clinging on to the last remnants of his power. Can I suggest that he may not have been particularly truthful?

Hood made a public statement that the sale of the Odsal lease was not for financial reasons. That proved to be utter B0llix. why would you still want to believe him now?

Where in my comment did I make any reference to believing anyone about anything? Or learning of anyone's intentions? I merely refuted the charge that Maislebugs laid at my door, and answered his question as to why I had assumed Hood would never make a bid. I have no idea whatsoever what Hood's actual reasons are. Like you - extensively - I can only speculate, and try and form an objective conclusion.

Like you, I am angry at being misled over the reasons behind the Odsal lease sale. Just like I was over e.g. the signing of Harris. But I can also see that, in the circumstances, there was no way WHATSOEVER that Hood, or any other director in his position, could have actually told the truth! Telling the truth would almost certainly have hastened the onset of the one thing the lease sale was clearly intended to avoid. And there are precedents. For example, before the 2002 Odsal settlement the Bulls were technically insolvent, and appeared to be reliant on the support of directors and Colin Tordoff (who the accounts show donated a lot of money to the club). Yet I listened to a radio interview with Caisley, defending the position of (IIRC) all but a couple of SL clubs that were likewise technically insolvent and basically rubbishing the idea that that was a big issue for the game. He was highly disingenuous, at least as much as Hood was over the lease sale - and he was excellent. He bullied the interviewer into submission with arguments that on the face of it sounded highly plausible (as well as a bit of derision). And he needed to, because the underlying charges being laid against the game were totally justified (as doubtless he was all too well aware). He did a great job in countering a strong argument IMO, and I applauded him for it. But he did not tell it straight; because he could not.

Have you ever been involved in or with the senior management of a company, in the public eye, where you are staring inslovency in the face (for whatever reason and whoever was to blame) and are desperately trying to find a solution without losing the confidence of those whose financial support you are depending on? If not, maybe if you had (I have) then you might admit that there may be some alternative interpretations and explanations? And that, as with so much in this sorry story, much may well be not at all what it first seems.

btw whoever said it was just the taxman? The club will not have been able to pay a load of other smaller creditors, many of whom will be small local businesses, and has had to trade on a cash up front basis for ages now. As soon as the directors are aware that a business looks to be insolvent they cannot prefer one creditor over another, with the result that virtually no-one gets paid. In the personal example I quoted, we had to run for nearly four months in such circumstances, until funding was secured (and formal insolvency avoided).

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:29 am  

I agree with you in that we cannot and could not expect all the ins and outs to be disclosed in a business. you are right, a certain amount of confidence has to be retained. But I feel that having Caisley carry the can, holding Hood up to be some kind of martyr to the cause is ridiculous.
I can accept a certain amount of "spin" to buy time and look at ways out, but I seriously doubt whether Hood had the right plan before Caisley's intervention.

To me, the biggest wrong doing in this process was Hood calling in the pledges, knowing that Caisley wanted him out and was going to formally do so! At this point he should have capitulated to Caisley (as he eventually did) and told him that "its now your problem to solve." But he didnt. he took our hard earned cash and threw it in a pit! upto that point, I'd say the blame was 60-40 Caisley, but after that I can not forgive him.

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:42 pm  

I don't see anyone suggesting Hood is some kind of martyr and Caisley is the antichrist - that would indeed be absurd, and not supported by what facts are available. What I DO see - and a view to which I subscribe - is a bunch of shareholders who collectively have behaved like kids in the playpen, chucking their teddies out of the cot when it suited them and running and hiding likewise when it suited. In particular, they all seemed incapable of working together for a short while, gritted teeth or no, in the wider interest of saving the club. A plague on all their houses, as far as I am concerned - Trevor (bless him) must be turning in his grave. Maybe he could have shamed the lot of them to bury the hatchet - and preferably not in each other's backs - for a few months.

The lesson for the future is to never let that situation happen again. Which is why I would hope and expect the eventual new owner will be precisely that - the owner. So he does not have to balance and compromise between potentially conflicting views and seek and wait for agreement whilst time waits for no man, and can just get on with the job. And, equally, when things go wrong, the only person he can blame is himself, and if he chucks his teddy out he'll have to go get it back himself because no bugger else will do it for him.

I could argue both ways about whether or not the pledges should have been called in. As long as I was satisfied that all the shareholders were acting in good faith, personally I would still do the same again.

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:01 pm  

wasnt referring to you in particular Adey, just some of the posts on here in recent months have had, shall we say, polarised views.

I want to be neither pro Caisley nor pro Hood. I am Pro Bradford RL, hopefully with one new owner whose got the cash to get us through.

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:46 pm  

isaac1 wrote:

wasnt referring to you in particular Adey, just some of the posts on here in recent months have had, shall we say, polarised views.

I want to be neither pro Caisley nor pro Hood. I am Pro Bradford RL, hopefully with one new owner whose got the cash to get us through.

In that case, I can confirm that we have violent agreement!

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:13 pm  

isaac1 wrote:

wasnt referring to you in particular Adey, just some of the posts on here in recent months have had, shall we say, polarised views.

I want to be neither pro Caisley nor pro Hood. I am Pro Bradford RL, hopefully with one new owner whose got the cash to get us through.

Likewise isaac1 I wasn't referring to you, more the victorious caisley clans pointless posturing! That I find quite inappropriate at this time!

As like you I'm not pro anyone either, even though it may sound like I am sometimes!

But in ignesight I can see why certain people chose to be economical with the truth! Doesn't mean I'm happy with it though!

On your last paragraph I couldn't agree more!!!

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:56 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

No I haven't.

I have repeatedly said that it was at least a possibility that Hood could have achieved the required investment (although I believe it was mostly Ryan's work, which is one big reason that I rate the possibility much higher than many others do).

I could have won the lottery if I'd placed a bet.

Likewise, Adeybull could have taken over the Bulls had he invested the same time as he has in RL Fans. But that's an opportunity cost-critique, not a reality.

Adeybull wrote:

And I have repeatedly said that the action of Caisley in making public the internal strife, stating he had no confidence in the board and intended to remove them at the earliest opportunity, and especially in the manner he did and at the time he did, IMO almost certainly served to undermine those efforts, and frighten off the would-be

You make the assumption that you are correct in your assignation Hood would have succeeded (in his proposed 'efforts') and it is 'higher' Why? We'll never know," is quite inconsequential.

You make a second assumption, that the alternative of Hood et al would be better, why? Notwithstanding where we are.

MY third observation is why, havent you personally, (given your apparent understanding, intellect, experience of and inherent knowledge of statutory legalities and a passion for the club) not personally (with persons of your persuasion/viewpoint) made an alternative plan for progression, in opposition to the current or previous situations?