He is the majority share holder, so therefore the other one too I guess.

OK, some points.



1. Its in the Sun.



2. If its from Parker, remember he gets much of his stuff from the interested party having a word in his ear. Maybe we've just seen a bit of kite-flying by Caisley? Some of what came out from him during the Burgess business seemed to be disingenuous at best.



3. Its in the Sun.



4. Caisley holds 26%, so can block a Special Resolution. The Board collectively control rather more than 50%, and so collectively they control the company. For the report to say Caisley, the largest individual shareholder, is the "majority shareholder is either an error or disingenuous bordering on untruth.



5. Its in the Sun.



6. Despite so much going tîts-up in the later years of his tenure, and the legacy that bequeathed his successors to sort out, for heaven's sake lets take nothing away from the outstanding progress the club made under his stewardship in the years leading up to all that. Without his vision and drive, we'd never have been in the position to have such a high place to fall from.



7. Its in the Sun.



8. the only reason we were able to continue at the level we did in the last years of Caisley's reign was because they spent the Odsal settlement money, meant to cover the period to 2019, at a truly alarming rate, living well beyond our means. Had something not been done, the club would have folded financially several years ago.



9. Its in the Sun.



10. Harrisgate did more damage to the club than almost anything else you can imagine. Whether Caisley regrets what many saw as his obsession with getting one over on Leeds (and they were just as bad!) who knows? But remember, the Tesco/Sterling Capitol stadium project falling through also did immense harm, especially to the club's potential to increase its corporate and sponsorship income. And it was hardly Caisley's fault that other clubs were bought by your Davys, McManuses, Caddicks, Morans, Wilkinsons, Lenaghans, Whelans, Hudgells etc of this world - all of whom seemed to have the wherewithall to pump usually millions into their club. Whether someone of such ilk might have bought into the Bulls had Caisley not been at the helm we will never know.



11. Its in the Sun.



12. As Sam says, diplomacy was not Caisley's strong point. History has maybe shown that, over time, you make more headway working with people than against them. Especially when you are up against salesmen-types who talk the talk rather than just say it how it is.



13. Its in the Sun.

I agree with these excellent points.

Much of causes of the slump (if not the debacle of the capitulations last season) can (I'd better say IMO) be attributed to the financial and academy pipeline situation when Caisley left office. The implications of those situations took a good time to fully manifest themselves. So the present board, whilst hardly totally blameless, catch the cräp for the situation they largely inherited, without yet getting the credit for the actions taken to redress the situation.



The history books will no doubt be somewhat kinder to most of Caisley's tenure than some are allowing on this thread, and also somewhat kinder to the present board than too many yet allow.

Good to see someone at least managed to sift out the real coded message from in amongst all the distractions and smokescreens...!

Is that based on beating Cas & Salford or your last 5 years' SL positions?

both plus the general improvement in squad and youth coming through.

I will ask my great friend & confident Mr ME whether your optimism is slightly premature.

Is this the same Bradford Bulls who were in terminal decline after an ass-whupping by the mighty 'S' just three weeks ago?

thats was only according to the moe negative posters. I'd be more worried about cas's terminal decline tbh

Although, as Adey says, it is in The Sun and therefore perhaps we can take it with a pinch of salt, this has been news within the corridors of a certain local radio station for a while now.

I recall the immense success that we had under Caisley, but it came at a price under his cavalier financial mis-prudence. Running the club into hugh debts without thought for it's sustainable future is not "vision"

I also recall that when the impact of this became evident he promptly jumped (what he considered) a sinking ship.

It has taken some time and great effort from Hood and his Board to avoid the impending financial catastrophy that his predecessor ratted out of.

We have seen a prudent rebuild of the club's finances over the last few years where unpalatable decisions needed to be made. This strong administration have done that to ensure the club's survival.

I heard it was in the T & A aswell. Dunno if that's true or not because I dont have a hard copy of it.