Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Sat Jun 30, 2012 9:01 am  

I make no assumptions. I merely try and bring some balance in the face of what to me has been a highly disingenuous campaign from one camp to discredit and blame the other, IMO seeking to take the supporters for fools.

None of the shareholders has seemed able to resolve the fundamental underlying problem of the paucity of income in this city and a council that seems unable to work with premier sporting partners for their mutual benefit the way those in other towns seem to be able to.

I can spend time on here because I am sat in front of a screen working all day and much of the night too. That means That when others might take a break for smoking or to stretch their legs I come on here. So we'ii have less of the bollox about time available, please. What little extra time I do have, Some of that I give to trying to make a small difference through Bullbuilder. That is the limit of what I have the time to do.

So yourlast point: because I lack the time, the resources, the money, the motivation, the desire to have to entertain and socialise professionally and the number of years of life left. I have to earn a living. Those who would seek to own a professional sporting club are already financially secure and with the time to commit. And are prepared to subordinate much of their personal life to the club. My role in life has always been to be the support, in the background, to those who would seek to go out in harms way. To make sure that while they are out there doing battle someone is minding the shop, and they have a shop to come back to, and to make sure that when they do go out there they are properly prepared and supported, and do not have to worry about what is happening back at the shop. I am no leader or driver, nor do I have any inclination of so being. That particular skill set belongs to others, and it is they whom I would choose to support.

But what I seek to contribute on here is genuine and as objective as I can make it consistent with the opinions I will invariably hold. And when I disagree with something, I seek to attack the argument not the individual. Can you say the same?

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:55 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).

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 investors.

What I have been very careful throughout NOT to say - because I can have no way of knowing - was what the motives behind that intervention were. "Sabotage" is deliberate. Do you know if it was deliberate, or (as I keep saying) just extremely unfortunate timing? I don't. Only he, and maybe others close to him, knows the answer to that, and how clear or otherwise their consciences therefore should be.

I suppose only the would be investors really know whether it was Caisley's intervention that frightened them off. But the next best thing would be to look at the actions of the man that was closely involved with them, Peter Hood.

Peter Hood said that he would only call in The Pledge if he was very confident that he would raise the second £500k. Caisley made his intervention on 5th April. The Bulls called in The Pledge on 10th April, stating that discussions were taking place with potential investors.

There was clearly plenty of time between 5th and 10th for Hood to contact his would be investors and gauge their reaction to Caisley's intervention. If he really believed that they had been frightened off why did he call in The Pledge? Would the Bulls still be having confidential discussions on the 10th if those would be investors had been frighten off 5 days earlier?

Isn't it more reasonable to assume that between 5th and 10th Hood had met his investors and concluded that Caisley's intervention had not frightened them off?

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:28 pm  

Well, I've been watching Sky Sports News today regarding Rangers. It's interesting as they're in a similar situation to us, just further along the road. They've lost a number of players who refused to sign new deals with the Newco at Rangers and have left as free agents. The main reasons given for this is that they feel betrayed by the club and administrators as they had not been given the true story.

I see from the T&A that Sammut has similar feelings. Wonder how many other Bulls players might have similar axes to grind regarding their treatment in all of this.

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:52 pm  

Roofaldo wrote:

Well, I've been watching Sky Sports News today regarding Rangers. It's interesting as they're in a similar situation to us, just further along the road. They've lost a number of players who refused to sign new deals with the Newco at Rangers and have left as free agents. The main reasons given for this is that they feel betrayed by the club and administrators as they had not been given the true story.

I see from the T&A that Sammut has similar feelings. Wonder how many other Bulls players might have similar axes to grind regarding their treatment in all of this.

Would be understandable. However, the pictures of Burgess seem to suggest he's committed to the club and plenty of others said they would like to remain. Even if we can just keep the young chaps together, that would be great. Better if they all stayed committed though.

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:53 pm  

I think the Rangers scenario players wise leans more to the fact they won't be in the SPL next year. Yes there will be some element regarding administration and what they've been told, but primarily I believe it's playing in a lower league as the prime driver for these contract rejections.

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:30 am  

I hear unsubstantiated rumours that Guilfoyle will not entertain other interested party bids and will favour only the one put forward by the Caisley Cohorts, if hes at the Guide Post tonight perhaps someone could ask him!

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:15 am  

I cam predict his answer!!

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:26 am  

I would imagine if that was the case, any bidder feeling they were spurned by the administrator without very good reason would blast it all over the media and to the administrator's professional body, so I feel sure such a thing would not come to pass. The administrator is an officer of the court, and therefore it would be in breach of all sorts of things if he was partisan and gave the impression of being in bed with one particular party, regardless of who appointed him and paid him pre-appointment, as I am sure he would unhesitatingly confirm.

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Mon Jul 02, 2012 7:10 am  

Blotto wrote:

I hear unsubstantiated rumours that Guilfoyle will not entertain other interested party bids and will favour only the one put forward by the Caisley Cohorts, if hes at the Guide Post tonight perhaps someone could ask him!

I don't think you need to worry - the administrators role is to get the best deal for the creditors and if it was shown he failed to consider a better bid then he would be in major trouble - think this is nothing more than a rumour.

it would be nice however to think he had more than one bid to choose between - but to be honest the situation the club is in once acceptable bid would be good

Re: Brendan Guilfoyle : Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:29 am  

Why does that Jimmy Nail song Crocodile Tears spring to mind http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... _/?ref=rss

Why does that Jimmy Nail song Crocodile Tears spring to mind http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/n ... _/?ref=rss