Fantasy horror perhaps

My publisher is on the case...

Don't suppose you got a £1.2m advance?



You should ask for even more as I gather sadism is a popular literary trend at present - and we the fans have certainly been subjected to some "rough" treament of late. I have still have the burn marks round my wallet - but hey I thought I was doing some good at the time

Perhaps you need a lawyer to lookk after your interests. I'm sure the Bulls know of one or though I could not guarantee his competency

Sorry? You've suggested nothing?



You haven't repeatedly suggested that it was at least a possibility that Peter Hood could have achieved the required investment and that the actions of Chris Caisley sabotaged said investment?

Careful, you're not allowed to critisize Adey

, you'll have his mafia on to you

No I haven't.



I have repeatedly said that it was at least a possibility that Hood could have achieved the required investment (although I believe it was mostly Ryan's work, which is one big reason that I rate the possibility much higher than many others do).



And I have repeatedly said that the action of Caisley in making public the internal strife, stating he had no confidence in the board and intended to remove them at the earliest opportunity, and especially in the manner he did and at the time he did, IMO almost certainly served to undermine those efforts, and frighten off the would-be investors.



What I have been very careful throughout NOT to say - because I can have no way of knowing - was what the motives behind that intervention were. "Sabotage" is deliberate. Do you know if it was deliberate, or (as I keep saying) just extremely unfortunate timing? I don't. Only he, and maybe others close to him, knows the answer to that, and how clear or otherwise their consciences therefore should be.

And yet in this fictional world there appears to be no possibility, or one you've felt worth merit, of Hood and his investors re-entering the frey and buying the club outright.



It seems an odd ommission considering that you've suggested that his securing of investment was, at least a possibility and that Hood asserts and presumably believes the club's financial position is not what Guilfoyle is stating.

You were told but you did not listen

I must have missed your apology for levelling a false accusation - maybe you posted it on another thread?



And I would have thought it was obvious - to anyone at least who does not assume that everyone else is driven by pursuit of power and status and authority - why I have never once ever considered the possibility of Hood making a pitch for the business himself?



I have assumed all along that he was a reluctant chairman doing what he felt was what was best for the business - you know that because I have said it enough times. He himself has as good as said it. So the answer to your question is: because I have always assumed he never wanted to, and would always have been happy to hand over the reins to someone he felt he could safely entrust them to. Maybe a concept that would be alien to someone like Caisley, but who knows?



I saw his face after the intervention. He was in a bad place. In his position, and I guess assuming that I would be pursued by Caisley even harder bcause of the loss of his shareholding, I would just want to get the hell out of it.



But I have only spoken to Hood twice this year - at the fans forum and at the meeting we held with him before Easter. So, like Caisley, I really cannot say anything about what his motives and intentions were beyond what I learned on those two occasions.

No, I haven't apologised, nor have I have sustained what by virtue of volume and bias amounts to a smear campaign.



On Hood, he's not handing the reins over to someone he trusts. He's been ousted by someone he detests and has stated is a liar. How could Caisley pursue him when Caisley effectively ousted him from the board and the directors he apparently voted for placed the club in pre-admin which resulted in administration?

Only on this forum could this be a conspiracy between Caisley and Guilfoyle!



If I was a shareholder, in a company that had just been saved from going under up by a massive donation from its cutomers, and whose Board of directors would not communicate properly with me, I would seek to have a proper look at the situation, and I would choose an insolvency specialist, as the business looked insolvent. And, if there was an insolvency specialist available, whom I had worked closely, and successfully (Plymouth Argyle still exisit dont they?) with, Why wouldnt I choose him?



Admin didnt become a forgone conclusion under Caisley, it was under Hood, its just that he chose not to see it!



and its not just the taxman. See the article in the T&A about not paying the caterers!



I dislike a lot of what Caisley has said/done in the past, but weve got to move on from apportioning blame, and get behind the people who want to save our club. Just like investors were scared off by the infighting at board level, maybe they'll be put off by the fanbase not supporting the club, or threatening to stop going?