Caisley is getting a ton of bad press and people are forgetting that he was at the helm when the Bulls were there strongest. he should get credit for that.
It's a good few years since he left and all he has been for the main time is a shareholder. He was not a decision make during the last four years when some disastrous and stupid financial decisions were made.
Yes, he signed Iestyn but, again, don't forget, Iestyn played in two Grand Finals for them and won one. Yes he fought the legal battle with us but, don't forget, it wasn't him that threw in the towel with that battle, it was Hood. We effectively "won" because of Hood's decision to capitulate but we will never know if we would have won had the Bulls continued to fight.
It wasn't Caisley that sold the leasehold to the RFl to clear a debt without realising it would create another liability for VAT and lead to the withdrawal of the overdraft facility. It wasn't Caisley who at the time of that stupid decision proclaimed it safeguarded the Bulls future. It wasn't caisley who a couple of months later asked his own fans to put £500,000 into an obviously insolvent company that was heading downhill on roller skates to an inevitable Administration.
As an outsider looking in I am not sure why Caisley is being painted as a villain. Of course, I could understand resentment that he jumped ship when he did but, you know what, I fully agreed with caisley's thoughts after the 2003 season. He put arguably the best Bradford team in history out and they had arguably their most successful season ever and the people of Bradford supported it in fewer numbers than before. Why should he remain at a club heading towards insolvency?
). He has a vested interest in the survival of the Bulls from a financial point of view and is only trying to protect his investment.
