FORUMS FORUMS







RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!

   WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Bulls finances 'considerably worse than originally thought'
debaser wrote:
But to save any issues, I withdraw my comments. The club have never, ever lied to us, not ever, not once. Not even a little bit.


Liar.

;)
Wouldn't anyone seriously interested in buying the club need to know that a significant shareholder would be likely to accept the offer? Or could the previous Board have sold the club without the consent of the shareholders?

When Hood made his statement about only accepting the fans money if he was very confident that he could raise the extra £500k, I took that to mean that he also believed that he had the backing of the shareholders. Since it would have been a meaningless statement otherwise. That's why I pledged.
Cibaman wrote:
Wouldn't anyone seriously interested in buying the club need to know that a significant shareholder would be likely to accept the offer? Or could the previous Board have sold the club without the consent of the shareholders?

When Hood made his statement about only accepting the fans money if he was very confident that he could raise the extra £500k, I took that to mean that he also believed that he had the backing of the shareholders. Since it would have been a meaningless statement otherwise. That's why I pledged.


The Board could not have sold the club. That would have required the shareholders to sell their shares to the prospective buyer. The board only held c.25% of the shares, so they could not themselves sell control to another party.

Regrding having the backing of other shareholders, he only needed to know he had the backing of 50% of the shareholding. Doubtless he knew he could NOT count on Caisley's backing, but - like you -I assumed he was happy he could continue to count on the backing of other former directors sufficient to give him at least 50% support. Seeing Roland Agar change sides (Coulby had previously sold nearly all his holding to Bennett and Hood...) was therefore quite a shock. I too had already pledged by then.
Cibaman wrote:
Wouldn't anyone seriously interested in buying the club need to know that a significant shareholder would be likely to accept the offer? Or could the previous Board have sold the club without the consent of the shareholders?

When Hood made his statement about only accepting the fans money if he was very confident that he could raise the extra £500k, I took that to mean that he also believed that he had the backing of the shareholders. Since it would have been a meaningless statement otherwise. That's why I pledged.


Isn't any company's board in a de facto position of having the backing of the shareholders, until a shareholders' meeting decides otherwise?

I appreciate that there are circumstances where the shareholders would need to give specific permissions and indeed occasions when the shareholders feel the need to reign in the directors. Again I don't know, but suspect, any action which is likely to dilute the shareholdings would need a special meeting (EGM?) but the pledge didn't offer the pledgees (ie. us) any holding in the club at all, so I'd expect it was within their powers.
Adeybull wrote:
The Board could not have sold the club. That would have required the shareholders to sell their shares to the prospective buyer. The board only held c.25% of the shares, so they could not themselves sell control to another party.

Regrding having the backing of other shareholders, he only needed to know he had the backing of 50% of the shareholding. Doubtless he knew he could NOT count on Caisley's backing, but - like you -I assumed he was happy he could continue to count on the backing of other former directors sufficient to give him at least 50% support. Seeing Roland Agar change sides (Coulby had previously sold nearly all his holding to Bennett and Hood...) was therefore quite a shock. I too had already pledged by then.


I cant really understand then why he took the fans money. If he wasnt sure that he had the backing of the shareholders to make a deal then he would have been better to have walked away at that point.
Adeybull wrote:
...
And I have no idea whether Hood WOULD have been able to deliver the required further investment had CC not intervened how and when he did. IMO he very much implied at the time that he would, and it sounded convincing enough for me to feel the cause was not lost. My point is that we'll now never have the opportunity of finding out. Whether Hood is incensed or relieved about that, I guess only he will know?


Indeed. And, surprisingly (not!) he's saying as much about it now he's out, as he was when he was in. I don't know what he'll be doing next, but I'm betting it won't be a Director of Communications anywhere :)

Do you suppose the T&A are even asking him for comments on all this stuff? Or even if they're not, now he is no longer in post, if something is claimed (eg the financial sit. is "believed to be" "far worse" than "was thought") wouldn't you be now shouting your case from the rooftops if you were him? I know I would be, if huge aspersions were being cast.

Some may say his silence is some form of tacit acceptance that the allegations have substance, but in reality he has a track record for hardly ever commenting on anything much at all. I suppose it's a free country, but can't understand why his PR is so bad.
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Indeed. And, surprisingly (not!) he's saying as much about it now he's out, as he was when he was in. I don't know what he'll be doing next, but I'm betting it won't be a Director of Communications anywhere :)

Do you suppose the T&A are even asking him for comments on all this stuff? Or even if they're not, now he is no longer in post, if something is claimed (eg the financial sit. is "believed to be" "far worse" than "was thought") wouldn't you be now shouting your case from the rooftops if you were him? I know I would be, if huge aspersions were being cast.

Some may say his silence is some form of tacit acceptance that the allegations have substance, but in reality he has a track record for hardly ever commenting on anything much at all. I suppose it's a free country, but can't understand why his PR is so bad.


If Caisley's review results in administration (as I think many of us have always asssumed it would) then the conduct of the directors will be very much under the spotlight. Indeed, the administrator is required to request information about the directors' conduct from creditors etc. I guess that may be one reason why he is saying nothing right now? Especially given his adversary is an experienced litigation lawyer not known for being gentle?

I understand that the T&A has indeed sought comments and information. For whatever reason - which may or may not include the above - he seems content to let the victors make all the PR running.
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Indeed. And, surprisingly (not!) he's saying as much about it now he's out, as he was when he was in. I don't know what he'll be doing next, but I'm betting it won't be a Director of Communications anywhere :)

Do you suppose the T&A are even asking him for comments on all this stuff? Or even if they're not, now he is no longer in post, if something is claimed (eg the financial sit. is "believed to be" "far worse" than "was thought") wouldn't you be now shouting your case from the rooftops if you were him? I know I would be, if huge aspersions were being cast.

Some may say his silence is some form of tacit acceptance that the allegations have substance, but in reality he has a track record for hardly ever commenting on anything much at all. I suppose it's a free country, but can't understand why his PR is so bad.


Maybe he's waiting for the review to be concluded or maybe he'll say nothing even then, who knows?

He's far from being alone in this regard though; as a supporter for over fifty years I can safely say the club has rarely made more information available than it absolutely had to. CC certainly didn't in his previous stint at the club, so unless they change the habits of a lifetime, things are unlikely to change for the better any time soon.
Cibaman wrote:
I cant really understand then why he took the fans money. If he wasnt sure that he had the backing of the shareholders to make a deal then he would have been better to have walked away at that point.


It may look quite strange, looking back? When they did not immediately announce the pledge results as promised, I assumed it was because they had to be very clear in their minds that by taking the money they had a realistic expectation of avoiding insolvency, and that the terms of the pledge had indeed been met. Given how close it was, and that there were bound to be some bogus pledges in there, that made sense to me.

BUT...if they HAD satisfied themselves that they should thereby avoid insolvency (even if that would mean e.g. selling players or cost-cutting), then I reasoned that as directors their responsibility was to call the pledges in to ensure they DID indeed avoid insolvency. Had they NOT done so, I reasoned they could be in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to take all reasonable steps to avoid insolvency. So it may be that they had no choice, regardless of whether they were subsequently booted out. And to my knowledge none of the Caisley cabal ever said in public that they disagreed with the pledge and that it should not be called in? (If that is incorrect, happy to see the detail and acknowledge).

There may well have been other motives and reasons, somne of which have been speculated upon on here. And calling in the pledges certainly made it far harder for the successors to go down the administration route from day 1.
Adeybull wrote:
It may look quite strange, looking back? When they did not immediately announce the pledge results as promised, I assumed it was because they had to be very clear in their minds that by taking the money they had a realistic expectation of avoiding insolvency, and that the terms of the pledge had indeed been met. Given how close it was, and that there were bound to be some bogus pledges in there, that made sense to me.

BUT...if they HAD satisfied themselves that they should thereby avoid insolvency (even if that would mean e.g. selling players or cost-cutting), then I reasoned that as directors their responsibility was to call the pledges in to ensure they DID indeed avoid insolvency. Had they NOT done so, I reasoned they could be in breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to take all reasonable steps to avoid insolvency. So it may be that they had no choice, regardless of whether they were subsequently booted out. And to my knowledge none of the Caisley cabal ever said in public that they disagreed with the pledge and that it should not be called in? (If that is incorrect, happy to see the detail and acknowledge).

There may well have been other motives and reasons, somne of which have been speculated upon on here. And calling in the pledges certainly made it far harder for the successors to go down the administration route from day 1.


I suppose I was taking him at his word when he said we needed £1m in total and quickly. I can't see how we could possibly raise £500k in the short term from player sales and cost cutting. Hence my assumption when I pledged was that he was genuinely confident of securing additional investment. And whilst it was obvious that there were issues with CC and other shareholders, I assumed, when he called in the pledge, that some sort of agreement had been reached to allow him to do a deal.

Obviously any sale or acquisition can collapse at the last minute , but it shouldnt have been due to lack of support from major shareholders as this should already have been secured.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bull on a canary, childofthenorthern, Marvin Goolash, Peter Goddard, Silver Bullitt and 104 guests

REPLY

Subject: 
Message:
   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...

Return to Bradford Bulls