Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 7:49 am  

tigertot wrote:

Just nicely patronising I thought. Must be Kaiser.

You can almost hear him speak as you read it.

I suppose also we cannot rule out the possibility that its based on a genuine letter but has been edited to change some of the meaning.

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 8:35 am  

It's essentially a 'paper trail' letter should Hood go ahead and call the administrator. It's purpose is not only to give notice but to show evidence of giving notice in any future litigation. He lays down the substance of conversations which Hood would have to refute in writing within a reasonable time frame (14 days) or they would be accepted as fact by a court at a later date. If Hood doesn't respond, he has accepted CC's version of events and if he does he risks being trapped by any factual inaccuracies.

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 8:43 am  

M@islebugs wrote:

It's essentially a 'paper trail' letter should Hood go ahead and call the administrator. It's purpose is not only to give notice but to show evidence of giving notice in any future litigation. He lays down the substance of conversations which Hood would have to refute in writing within a reasonable time frame (14 days) or they would be accepted as fact by a court at a later date. If Hood doesn't respond, he has accepted CC's version of events and if he does he risks being trapped by any factual inaccuracies.

Wish I'd said that; that's exactly what that letter amounts to. I've written enough like that myself. I wonder if Hood replied, and if so what he said? If he did not reply, and did not refute Caisley's suppositions, he'll likely have weakened his position in the event of subsequent litigation IMO. FA will doubtless advise!

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 9:10 am  

Would love to see the response.

Although I'd love to hear the review is completed, there's no need to sell players, Potter is staying and we're spending the full cap next year a whole lot more!!

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 9:15 am  

I doubt there was a reply, since the nub of the letter is
(a) a demand that they resign (they did); and
(b) a demand they do not put the company in administration (they didn't)

On that basis, I don't readily see what scope there is for any future litigation when any of the matters raised in the letter might be relevant and unless Hood was NOT going to resign or HAD decided to go for admin anyway, I don't see much would have been gained by a reply of any susbtance, from a man who was heading out the exit door.

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 9:30 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I doubt there was a reply, since the nub of the letter is
(a) a demand that they resign (they did); and
(b) a demand they do not put the company in administration (they didn't)

On that basis, I don't readily see what scope there is for any future litigation when any of the matters raised in the letter might be relevant and unless Hood was NOT going to resign or HAD decided to go for admin anyway, I don't see much would have been gained by a reply of any susbtance, from a man who was heading out the exit door.

The fact that they did not resign immediately when demanded - this letter purports both to prove the demand AND provide the reasoning behind it? If so, could Hood be exposed if Caisley can argue that the company's financial position and options worsened as a result? Given of course that by staying on, initially at least, they secured £1/2m of donated cash which clearly saved the business from immediate administration, so Hood would presumably have a strong counter-argument?

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 9:36 am  

Adeybull wrote:

The fact that they did not resign immediately when demanded - this letter purports both to prove the demand AND provide the reasoning behind it? If so, could Hood be exposed if Caisley can argue that the company's financial position and options worsened as a result? Given of course that by staying on, initially at least, they secured £1/2m of donated cash which clearly saved the business from immediate administration, so Hood would presumably have a strong counter-argument?

Think that point answers itself. Even if we have only had half the truth, it seems clear that if we'd not got the £1/2m in, we'd be in admin now, so the collection of the Pledge has bought everybody breathing space. Including ironically time for CC & Co. to do their meticulous review. The stark choice seems to have been between ringing the pledgors or ringing the administrator.

Not quite sure how getting in a half a million big Brucie bonus in cash could worsen the financial position or narrow options, either!

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 9:46 am  

Exactly.

The only option I can see it narrowed was the new team going for administration because of the new post-pledge moral dimension, and that would not count. And if PH can prove they were in serious discussions with potential sponsors/investors, then he'll have the argument that CC's public (as opposed to private) intervention effectively scuppered the chances, whether it did or not but especially if he has a letter someplace saying the other party/parties had decided not to proceed with the ownership and management issue unresolved?

This letter could easily have been leaked by either side?

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 10:04 am  

It could, and I wouldn't bet much which.

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Wed May 30, 2012 10:09 am  

Do you guys charge your clients for the time spent on RAB?

The only things I am waiting to hear on this subject are : we need £xxx to keep out of admin and £xxx to keep our best young bloods - so fans hands in the pockets again