I hope that history treats Peter Hood more kindly than the present is appearing to do.

Has he actually resigned?

It might for Caisley. Depends on what happens before.

It might for club..... I think the ball is defo in Caisleys court now. Let's see what his next move is (if anything.....)

Nothing in the press bar a confusing look north report.

There is the ongoing wage issue for the season as a large amount of your income from Sky and season tickets has gone the only income is from gate receipts and shop sales etc, if it is known that the wages cannot be paid going forward the company is insolvent and trading illegally if known.

Hood stepping down now and admitting defeat,in my opinion would be despicable. he assured the fans that he would not take thepledged money if he didnt think the rest could be secured. It seems he has goven up! Caisley has said nothing publicly to support or undermine what they are doing at the club since before the original pledge deadline so surely Hood cant use Caisley as an excuse for the pledge not working. If Caisly had derailed it, it was prior to the club taking the money.



I am absolutley fed up to the back teeth of Hood and Caisley, and Bennett and the others to be honest. their petty attitude towards each other, and their lack of humility has wrecked this club. If they could have worked properly together we wouldnt be in this mess. they may be gambling with their shares, but without us the fans they have nothing! The way they have conducted themselves has shown a real lack of respect for all of us, even those fortunate few who were granted an audience!



Our focus is now on paying the bills that come in a few weeks. minimal cash flow for a few weeks means we may struggle to avaiod administration before our next home match.





Dont let Hood blame Caisley if we go into admin, and dont believe all Caisley says about Hood. these two Pee in the same pot and are as bad as each other!

How can you make that statement? Do you have any clear knowledge that that was the case?



In the first place, when we met with the BoD before D Day (and before Caisley's intervention via the T&A) it was clear they were very mindful of their responsibilities as directors regarding trading whilst insolvent. I cannot believe all three directors would have called the pledge in had they not had realistic expectations that the business would continue as a going concern. To call the pledges in otherwise ran the risk of them becoming personally liable. At the time, I attributed the delay to the directors needing to be as sure as they could be on this point.



Secondly, everything I heard then - and indeed on the day the pledge was called in - from the mouths of directors - suggested they continued to believe that the remainder of the funds would be secured. If they were being unreasonably optimistic, especially regarding the impact of the Caisley intervention followed by Sutcliffe and Preston and Coulby, maybe we'll never know; but my own feeling is that they nevertheless genuinely believed that to be so at the time.



I suspect that, when history comes to be written, we may discover that matters did not proceed at all as expected at the time the pledge was called in. Although little in this whole sorry saga of kindergarten politics would surprise me any more.



Whether the public pronouncements on the inter-shareholder strife from a variety of people served to deter the potential funders, only those party to the discussions will know. And indeed, we've not yet seen confirmation that NO such funding will actually be forthcoming - even though I guess its not unreasonable for fans to be fearing the worst, especially given how Hood seems to have thrown the towel in.



After all, once Caisley had announced he had a majority to remove the board, who would want to conclude a deal with the club until and unless the internal strife had been resolved? Something Caisley must surely have appreciated, even if maybe the BoD may not have?



Fat ladies have not sung yet; we might wake up one morning to a headline (probably not in the T&A) that a white knight has indeed manifested himself? I'd think twice about betting the house on it though.

I have no idea why people are getting at Hood at the moment. So far all I see are replays of what he wrote in the programme, which basically said that he expected to be voted out at the EGM. If someone has some concrete evidence that he has in fact resigned please link to it to avoid this feeding frenzy of speculation.

My money is on Seabrooks or Mumtaz........watch this space. (I know nothing official on this by the way!).



Just speculating though, but how good would it be to have Mumtaz on the case? Getting the Asian community behind the Bulls would be phenomenal

Unless it is true that Hood has resigned, nothing is likely to happen before the EGM, Chris Caisley's statement to the T&A pretty much ensures that, since no-one is going to invest in a business where the current board are certain to be outvoted at an imminent EGM.



If it is true about PH then anything and everything is in play, though as someone else pointed out earlier in the piece, CC has known about the financial position for yonks and hasn't come up with anything, so why people are expecting him to do so now is a bit surprising, to be honest.



The one thing which puzzles me about the Caisley statement though, is the role of Nobby coming in to, what was it again, "to look over the football side of things", or some thing along those lines. Whilst there are clearly issues over the finances, the "football side of things" is doing OK for my money and doesn't need Nobby, or anyone else coming in.



Though, I guess it could mean looking at the team to see where cuts can be made to bring the finances into order. And whilst this certainly isn't what I would [iwant[/i to hear, it is definitely preferable to admin, point reductions and welching on debts.

Hood hasn't resigned