Chris Caisley ... LIAR? : Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:25 pm  

So, into administration we go, thanks very much Mr Chris Caisley!

The man led a crusade to oust the previous board, claiming to have 'investors in place' ready to save the club, so come on then, now we are in administration name then? Who were they?? Where did they go to???

Don't come with the 'oh dear, we owe £500,000 more than we originally thought due to the previous regime' either, if you didn't know the full extent of the debt before taking over the reigns then you are an even bigger buffoon than even I gave you credit for.

The fans of this great club have been treat with utter contempt these last few weeks, Mushrooms kept in the dark and fed on sh*t about how we were in talks and were confident about avoiding administration. What's the word I am look for??? Oh yes, it's bolloc ks!

I hope we do find a buyer, but if Mr Caisley ends up owning the club I for one will not be putting my money into it, he has led us right up the garden path.

If you read this I HOPE YOU ARE PROUD OF YOURSELF ... you are an absolute disgrace.

Re: Chris Caisley ... YOU LIAR : Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:32 pm  

couldn't agree more with this post

Re: Chris Caisley ... YOU LIAR : Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:33 pm  

We were going into administration even before Caisley got in, we were running out of money just the same.

Re: Chris Caisley ... YOU LIAR : Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:35 pm  

Bulls4Champs wrote:

We were going into administration even before Caisley got in, we were running out of money just the same.

Well then why didn't he just leave them to it, if that's what was inevitable? Then you could say for definite that they could not have kept the place going. We all know we were in pretty dire straits cashflow-wise but we were not in administration.

Re: Chris Caisley ... YOU LIAR : Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:40 pm  

Bulls4Champs wrote:

We were going into administration even before Caisley got in, we were running out of money just the same.

You are right, we were heading into administration anyway, but along came a Knight in shining armour with 'investors in place' ready to save the club.

Oh, hang on...................

Re: Chris Caisley ... YOU LIAR : Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:41 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well then why didn't he just leave them to it, if that's what was inevitable? Then you could say for definite that they could not have kept the place going. We all know we were in pretty dire straits cashflow-wise but we were not in administration.

Maybe because he didnt want Peter Hood running something he clearly wasn't upto and wanted a go at trying to secure some money himself? According to reports 800k was on the table and we just needed another 400k, that was 800k more than Peter Hood could manage to secure.

Re: Chris Caisley ... YOU LIAR : Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:53 pm  

Bulls4Champs wrote:

Maybe because he didnt want Peter Hood running something he clearly wasn't upto and wanted a go at trying to secure some money himself? According to reports 800k was on the table and we just needed another 400k, that was 800k more than Peter Hood could manage to secure.

Well, you believe that if you want. Personally I reckon if our new board can't between the lot of 'em raise a paltry 400K to save the club they have supposedly come in to save, if they genuinely have a backer/s who will stump up 800K, then that says it all. Anybody could have come in and put out an open-ended begging bowl. Was that really the only plan? "Please give us lots of cash"?

Why should I automatically believe the reports of Coulby yet automatically dismiss the reports of Hood? With respect, you have no idea what Hood would or would not have been able to secure. like the Coulby "investors", they could have been real, or bullshitters, or mythical.

Anyway, just answer me this: IF there really was "800K on the table", then why, this morning, was the administrator quoted as saying that NOBODY had even come forward that was interested? 800K sounds like somebody that could reasonably be described as fairly interested, surely?

Re: Chris Caisley ... YOU LIAR : Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:55 pm  

Bulls4Champs wrote:

We were going into administration even before Caisley got in, we were running out of money just the same.

In fairness Mike, we will never now know whether the previous lot could, and would, have avoided administration. And, if so, with what consequences.

Caisley's highly-public damning condemnation of the previous lot, just before the pledge deadline and at the most crucial of times - especially I suggest for third parties who may have been considering investing/sponsoring on the back of the fans' magnificent efforts - effectively wrote off any chances the previous lot might have had of completing the job. They may have been living in cloud-cuckoo land; they may have had a realistic plan; they may have been trying to wing it; they may have just been ridiculously naïve or even reckless; they may have been misled or let down; they may have been looking to sell our star players to balance the books; they may have been on the verge of cracking the problem. The thing is, we will now never know.

Maybe Caisley needs to explain to the fans why he and Brutus Agarius did not demand of Hood and Bennett, in private, that they appointed him and several others of his cabal as directors immediately, so they became a majority on the baord and could control the business that way? A bloodless coup, at least to the outside? And, if Hood and Bennett refused, then and only then convene an EGM to have themselves appointed, but with no resolution to remove them.

I suggest he needs to explain why instead he demanded, in the full glare of publicity, that he had no confidence in the the previous lot and insisted they stood down immediately, when surely he could have achieved exactly the same result largely behind the scenes and out of the glare of publicity by doing what I outlined above. And, in so doing, instead give the impression to all the world that the club was dramatically strengthening its board in its hour of gravest need? You know, precisely the sort of thing that a prospective investor would almost certainly be delighted to see?

Why, Chris? Explain your actions, so we can better judge why you acted as you did. We might even conclude you were right. Unless, of course, you hold the supporters in too little esteem to believe you have any need to?

Re: Chris Caisley ... YOU LIAR : Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:02 pm  

Perhaps the worst aspect of the whole thing, for mine, is the whole lot of the principal protagonists being irretrievably split into two camps - to the extent they won't even meet, let alone talk, and to the extent that the only communication is via mutual baggings in the press - when what the club needed was for these people to bury their differences and all come together to fight for the survival of the club. It is to their eternal shame that they did not.

Re: Chris Caisley ... YOU LIAR : Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:09 pm  

Come on chaps, you know full well that the previous board were never even close to securing investment either in their last days or at any time of their reign.

I agree it could have been handled better though.