Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 2:28 pm  

Then why didn't he keep Caisley's letter private?

Incredibullman hasn't come to the conclusion that CC planned administration all along by enigma. Someone significant (probably the same person gave him/her the letter) has told them.

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 2:37 pm  

There is always the possibility that IBM was close enough to the action to be aware for himself what was going on?

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 2:43 pm  

In what role?

He/She has a copy of private correspondence between two people. it follows that Incredibullman is either Peter Hood or Chris Caisley or they've been given the letter by either Peter Hood or Chris Caisley.

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 3:10 pm  

Assuming the letter is genuine, then unless there was an intermediate party involved the argument is irrefutable.

[Bulliac]

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 3:43 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Assuming the letter is genuine, then unless there was an intermediate party involved the argument is irrefutable.

Or picked it up from the photocopier........accessed someone's computer......found it at the bottom of a pile of papers.....

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 5:56 pm  

Am I confused? Is the implication here that even though the letter clearly state that he doesn't want the club in administration, people still think that CC is somehow still plotting it all along, and the letter is part of an elaborate double bluff?

How does that work then?

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 6:24 pm  

debaser wrote:

Am I confused? Is the implication here that even though the letter clearly state that he doesn't want the club in administration, people still think that CC is somehow still plotting it all along, and the letter is part of an elaborate double bluff?

How does that work then?

It's how some have chosen to roll around these 'ere parts lately; primarily to mitigate their failing, misguided beliefs and also because they have been sold an absolute stinker of a sob story by the previous BoD. That they are unable to see the notion you outline is actually farcical, and essentially impractical, is indicative of their mis-comprehension as to the whole situation, and indeed that their "intelligence-led" approach is somewhat ironic.

Also duly noted Mr Hoods very appearance on these forums as a relatively new poster (another pseudonym to align with his strategically placed stooges).

I shall make little comment on the letter, other than to reiterate the bloody obvious; only somebody who would benefit in a public perception led environment would benefit from its very presence. Wouldn't they PH?

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 6:46 pm  

debaser wrote:

Am I confused? Is the implication here that even though the letter clearly state that he doesn't want the club in administration, people still think that CC is somehow still plotting it all along, and the letter is part of an elaborate double bluff?

How does that work then?

And anyway. Whether or not administration, as a means to secure full control, was his intent originally, I'd admit to being surprised and disappointed if that was his preferred option now. I really can't see what it would solve financially, and he'd be seen as the bad guy in the eyes of a lot of people. If he was ever motivated to gain victory over Hood (and I have no idea if he was, one way or the other) then indeed I fear it could prove to be something of a pyrrhic victory.

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 6:52 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

And anyway. Whether or not administration, as a means to secure full control, was his intent originally, I'd admit to being surprised and disappointed if that was his preferred option now.

But is it not perfectly clear from the letter that administration was not his intent?
Why do people doubt it?

Re: Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thoug : Thu May 31, 2012 6:59 pm  

debaser wrote:

But is it not perfectly clear from the letter that administration was not his intent?
Why do people doubt it?

Because not everyone is naïve enough to believe that everything said in a formal legalistic business letter, containing both demands and a clear warning from one party to a commercial conflict to another as well as quite clearly seeking to establish that party's version of the timeline for the record, is to be taken at face value. I wish it was otherwise.

I have written, been party to and received enough of such letters over my too-many years to feel I can speak from some experience, unfortunately. Its all part of one big game, and almost everybody except bullies and the lawyers who make good money out of it (sorry FA...) hates it, in my experience.