Peter Hood disputes Stephen Coulby claims on state of Bradford Bulls finances

Peter Hood has denied claims made by newly-appointed Bulls director Stephen Coulby

Peter Hood has denied claims made by newly-appointed Bulls director Stephen Coulby

First published in Bulls Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Bradford Bulls Reporter

Peter Hood has returned fire on Stephen Coulby and mounted a vigorous defence of his Odsal reign after coming under attack from the newly-appointed Bulls director.

Coulby claimed in Saturday’s Telegraph & Argus that the Bulls’ cash crisis was far worse than originally thought and that Hood and Andrew Bennett had budgeted to lose over £1million this year.

After an independent review of the club’s finances, Coulby said that around £1.25million was needed to meet the club’s debts and take it forward until the end of the year.

He claimed that Hood and Bennett failed to pay a £250,000 VAT bill on the deal which saw them sell the lease on Odsal to the RFL before taking out a “six-figure loan” in March.

Yet Hood, who along with Bennett was forced to step down as a director last month by the club’s majority shareholders, paving the way for the appointment of Coulby and Rowland Agar onto the board, has strenuously denied the claims.

Hood, who is still a significant shareholder with 20 per cent of all issued shares, has asked chief executive Ryan Duckett to put him in touch with whoever conducted the financial review.

The club had substantial funds at bank and no overdraft when Andrew Bennett and I went. It owed no PAYE or routine VAT

Peter Hood

Hood in a statement: “On the question of VAT, Coulby is reported as saying that Andrew Bennett and I “failed to pay a £250,000 VAT bill on the deal which saw them sell the lease on Odsal to the RFL.

“What Coulby for some reason chooses not to mention, however, is an arrangement whereby this VAT would be paid at £50,000 per month over the five months commencing May 2012. Not quite the same as “failed to pay”, I suggest.

“It is not unusual for businesses to arrange to pay large, exceptional VAT charges in this manner.

“The Bulls’ regular VAT bills due for the period ended March 2012, meanwhile, were paid in full and on time.

“Coulby goes on to say that ‘Hood and his former co-director Bennett budgeted to lose over £1million this year’. This is not true.

“There is a cashflow model that shows that, if nothing happened to generate new monies, based on a full salary cap spend and other substantial football costs, then the result would be a loss of over £1million.

“But as we know, the Pledge For Survival raised over half a million of new cash from fans and friends of the club, including from myself and Andrew Bennett and Ryan Duckett but not, so far as I recall, from messrs (Chris) Caisley, Coulby or Agar.

“Added to which, as the continuing director Ryan Duckett is in a position to confirm, discussions were well advanced with a number of well-funded potential sponsors at the time Bennett and I were forced out.”

Hood said there had been a written offer from Warrington on the table for John Bateman and that the “six-figure loan” that Coulby spoke of was merely an advance from the RFL.

Hood said: “There was no such loan. The cash in question was an advance of the club’s own broadcast rights distributions (TV money) from Super League, in the sum of £110,000.

“In other words, this is the club drawing down its own money, in advance, to ease cash-flow. Not unlike someone getting a salary or wages advance, in fact.

“Is that a loan? Not in the way Coulby would have T&A readers believe, it isn’t.

“Coulby says that a total of ‘£1.25 million was needed to meet the club’s debts and take it forward until the end of next year’. But can this truly be the case?

“The club had substantial funds at bank and no overdraft when Andrew Bennett and I went. It owed no PAYE or routine VAT.

“It owed tax on the stadium and ‘image rights’ but these were to be paid over time. It had ordinary creditors, as any business has, but it also had money due to it.

“It also had Warrington’s cash offer for John Bateman. It had to pay wages ongoing but had the benefit of ongoing Super League TV income and other central distributions.

“Plus there were big new sponsorship discussions well advanced. I don’t recognise that as adding up to a shortfall of £1.25m or anything like it.

“So why is Stephen Coulby being so economical with the truth? Could it be, perhaps, that he seeks to paint a scenario to justify an imminent plunge into administration, all the while protesting this is the last thing he and his colleagues want?”

* See Peter Hood’s statement in full at www.telegraphandargus.co.uk

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:47am Mon 4 Jun 12

georget44 says...

Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! georget44
  • Score: 0

8:00am Mon 4 Jun 12

murphyslaw says...

georget44 wrote:
Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see.
[quote][p][bold]georget44[/bold] wrote: Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see. murphyslaw
  • Score: 0

8:15am Mon 4 Jun 12

expatbull says...

murphyslaw wrote:
georget44 wrote:
Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see.
like his quote “Plus there were big new sponsorship discussions well advanced."if so and they were so well advances why jump before being pushed,if i was that close to a deal i would have taken it to an conclusion,personall
y i dont trust too much of what hood has said,or the other guys really.
[quote][p][bold]murphyslaw[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]georget44[/bold] wrote: Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see.[/p][/quote]like his quote “Plus there were big new sponsorship discussions well advanced."if so and they were so well advances why jump before being pushed,if i was that close to a deal i would have taken it to an conclusion,personall y i dont trust too much of what hood has said,or the other guys really. expatbull
  • Score: 0

8:19am Mon 4 Jun 12

Solomon Grundy says...

Well, if Peter Hood had been as candid as this before people might have felt a bit differently about him. It was the sense of catastrophe lurking under the surface and him being in denial about it that caused everyone to lose confidence in him.

What's clear is that Coulby and Hood cannot conduct this mud slinging via the T&A any longer and this needs to be sorted out in a professional and adult manner.
Well, if Peter Hood had been as candid as this before people might have felt a bit differently about him. It was the sense of catastrophe lurking under the surface and him being in denial about it that caused everyone to lose confidence in him. What's clear is that Coulby and Hood cannot conduct this mud slinging via the T&A any longer and this needs to be sorted out in a professional and adult manner. Solomon Grundy
  • Score: 0

8:26am Mon 4 Jun 12

Sheffieldbull says...

murphyslaw wrote:
georget44 wrote:
Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see.
As have others before him eh? Neither side could 'lie' straight in bed before I'm accused on 'camping' on one side as some on here, it seems.
[quote][p][bold]murphyslaw[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]georget44[/bold] wrote: Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see.[/p][/quote]As have others before him eh? Neither side could 'lie' straight in bed before I'm accused on 'camping' on one side as some on here, it seems. Sheffieldbull
  • Score: 0

8:30am Mon 4 Jun 12

IDLEBULL says...

It's becoming a joke, drip fed bits of junk as per usual. None of these guys can be trusted. If they felt anything about the club then they would of put there differences aside and done the best for the club. Whether that means selling off a couple of players I don't know but just get on with it and keep us supporters that tried our best to help the club out informed.
It's becoming a joke, drip fed bits of junk as per usual. None of these guys can be trusted. If they felt anything about the club then they would of put there differences aside and done the best for the club. Whether that means selling off a couple of players I don't know but just get on with it and keep us supporters that tried our best to help the club out informed. IDLEBULL
  • Score: 0

9:00am Mon 4 Jun 12

Mumby was the best says...

IDLEBULL wrote:
It's becoming a joke, drip fed bits of junk as per usual. None of these guys can be trusted. If they felt anything about the club then they would of put there differences aside and done the best for the club. Whether that means selling off a couple of players I don't know but just get on with it and keep us supporters that tried our best to help the club out informed.
I totally agree its the supporters who should at least be considered amongst all this bickering.
But its hardly surprising Hood has come out fighting and standing his corner after what Coulby (Caisley`s puppet) has stated in the press.
[quote][p][bold]IDLEBULL[/bold] wrote: It's becoming a joke, drip fed bits of junk as per usual. None of these guys can be trusted. If they felt anything about the club then they would of put there differences aside and done the best for the club. Whether that means selling off a couple of players I don't know but just get on with it and keep us supporters that tried our best to help the club out informed.[/p][/quote]I totally agree its the supporters who should at least be considered amongst all this bickering. But its hardly surprising Hood has come out fighting and standing his corner after what Coulby (Caisley`s puppet) has stated in the press. Mumby was the best
  • Score: 0

9:35am Mon 4 Jun 12

t'old man says...

So now he is no longer chairman he gives a statement outling the clubs financial state something he wouln't do before !!!! and we are now supposed to believe him ????
So now he is no longer chairman he gives a statement outling the clubs financial state something he wouln't do before !!!! and we are now supposed to believe him ???? t'old man
  • Score: 0

9:54am Mon 4 Jun 12

Will, Huddersfield says...

This is a strong rebuttal by Hood of Coulby's allegations and have the ring of conviction about them. His conclusion that fans may be being softened up for an impending administration is one that concerns me too. If this were to happen, it would be disasterous for the club to say nothing for the fans who honoured pledges in good faith and would have seen their money wasted.
There is one person who knows exactly what has both gone on and is going on and that is Ryan Duckett. As a paid executive of the club he straddles both camps. He knows the truths and also the propoganda. His thoughts would an eye-opener I don't doubt.
This is a strong rebuttal by Hood of Coulby's allegations and have the ring of conviction about them. His conclusion that fans may be being softened up for an impending administration is one that concerns me too. If this were to happen, it would be disasterous for the club to say nothing for the fans who honoured pledges in good faith and would have seen their money wasted. There is one person who knows exactly what has both gone on and is going on and that is Ryan Duckett. As a paid executive of the club he straddles both camps. He knows the truths and also the propoganda. His thoughts would an eye-opener I don't doubt. Will, Huddersfield
  • Score: 0

11:30am Mon 4 Jun 12

huggy b says...

It has been Caisleys' intention to throw the club into administration all along. Part of the deal which saw him step down as chairman all those years ago had a clause whereby if the club went into admin he could buy it back/resume control for much less than the market value, I'm reliably informed. His mismanagement put us on this path to destruction then he walked away. Do not trust him.
It has been Caisleys' intention to throw the club into administration all along. Part of the deal which saw him step down as chairman all those years ago had a clause whereby if the club went into admin he could buy it back/resume control for much less than the market value, I'm reliably informed. His mismanagement put us on this path to destruction then he walked away. Do not trust him. huggy b
  • Score: 0

11:32am Mon 4 Jun 12

lttlewhitebull says...

If as Hood states we made a profit of £250,000 last year and were making a profit of £100,000 so far this year why are we in financial trouble? . Deferring payments to others and asking for sky payments early is only putting off and increasing problems further down the line. I have no allegiance to either side but I have to give Caisley's mob a chance as Hood has never made a statement that stacks up and to throw the Bateman offer into the ring as evidence of good management quite frankly makes me sick.
If as Hood states we made a profit of £250,000 last year and were making a profit of £100,000 so far this year why are we in financial trouble? . Deferring payments to others and asking for sky payments early is only putting off and increasing problems further down the line. I have no allegiance to either side but I have to give Caisley's mob a chance as Hood has never made a statement that stacks up and to throw the Bateman offer into the ring as evidence of good management quite frankly makes me sick. lttlewhitebull
  • Score: 0

11:59am Mon 4 Jun 12

billybobbull says...

Hood couldn't lay it all out in the press before he went because the negotiations with any interested parties will have to be confidential.
Now he can let all the cats out!
It is clear that the new board are softening us for administration if and when they don't have the right offers.
To be fair to everyone, IF we were definitely going into administration it would likely have happened already, so fingers crossed the new board have something up their sleeve.
Hood couldn't lay it all out in the press before he went because the negotiations with any interested parties will have to be confidential. Now he can let all the cats out! It is clear that the new board are softening us for administration if and when they don't have the right offers. To be fair to everyone, IF we were definitely going into administration it would likely have happened already, so fingers crossed the new board have something up their sleeve. billybobbull
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Mon 4 Jun 12

spleen ventor says...

“There is a cashflow model that shows that, if nothing happened to generate new monies, based on a full salary cap spend and other substantial football costs, then the result would be a loss of over £1million.

“But as we know, the Pledge For Survival raised over half a million of new cash from fans and friends of the club, including from myself and Andrew Bennett and Ryan Duckett but not, so far as I recall, from messrs (Chris) Caisley, Coulby or Agar".

The half a million raised by the fans can not be classed as "new monies" as it was not budgeted for, so as Coulby originally said the board did budget to lose over a million pounds.
“There is a cashflow model that shows that, if nothing happened to generate new monies, based on a full salary cap spend and other substantial football costs, then the result would be a loss of over £1million. “But as we know, the Pledge For Survival raised over half a million of new cash from fans and friends of the club, including from myself and Andrew Bennett and Ryan Duckett but not, so far as I recall, from messrs (Chris) Caisley, Coulby or Agar". The half a million raised by the fans can not be classed as "new monies" as it was not budgeted for, so as Coulby originally said the board did budget to lose over a million pounds. spleen ventor
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Mon 4 Jun 12

olicanabull says...

Hood's response seems in some respects reasonable and compelling. You can take his point about a so-called 'new loan' and the VAT payment on the sale to the RFL. What is less convincing is that there were potential investors lined up. If these had been rock-solid and substantial then Hood could have gone to the EGM and announced them to great fanfares and have defied Caisley et al to vote him out. However I have two major complaints about this whole business which I think I share with most fans and pledgers. The first is the radio silence of Hood during the last three months. If he had stated earlier what he has said now there would have been greater understanding among the fans about what was transpiring. I said earlier that the club's PR was hopeless and amateurish. Secondly, it is difficult to be patient with the schisms among the old and new (returning) directors. As someone said, a little less ego among the directors, a greater collectiveness in the interests of the club, and a willingness to work together for the benefit of players, staff and supporters would be desirable but yet, it seems, unattainable. They should remember that they are not the only shareholders or stakeholders in the club. There are all those who pledged who deserve special consideration rather than being spectators at some intra-tribal warfare. They should remember that without us they are nothing.
Hood's response seems in some respects reasonable and compelling. You can take his point about a so-called 'new loan' and the VAT payment on the sale to the RFL. What is less convincing is that there were potential investors lined up. If these had been rock-solid and substantial then Hood could have gone to the EGM and announced them to great fanfares and have defied Caisley et al to vote him out. However I have two major complaints about this whole business which I think I share with most fans and pledgers. The first is the radio silence of Hood during the last three months. If he had stated earlier what he has said now there would have been greater understanding among the fans about what was transpiring. I said earlier that the club's PR was hopeless and amateurish. Secondly, it is difficult to be patient with the schisms among the old and new (returning) directors. As someone said, a little less ego among the directors, a greater collectiveness in the interests of the club, and a willingness to work together for the benefit of players, staff and supporters would be desirable but yet, it seems, unattainable. They should remember that they are not the only shareholders or stakeholders in the club. There are all those who pledged who deserve special consideration rather than being spectators at some intra-tribal warfare. They should remember that without us they are nothing. olicanabull
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Mon 4 Jun 12

murphyslaw says...

Sheffieldbull wrote:
murphyslaw wrote:
georget44 wrote:
Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see.
As have others before him eh? Neither side could 'lie' straight in bed before I'm accused on 'camping' on one side as some on here, it seems.
You do have difficulty grasping things. I doubt anyone on here doesn't appreciate the shortcomings of both camps but this article is about Hood and his response and questions have to be asked why he didn't reveal this wealth of information months ago.
[quote][p][bold]Sheffieldbull[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]murphyslaw[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]georget44[/bold] wrote: Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see.[/p][/quote]As have others before him eh? Neither side could 'lie' straight in bed before I'm accused on 'camping' on one side as some on here, it seems.[/p][/quote]You do have difficulty grasping things. I doubt anyone on here doesn't appreciate the shortcomings of both camps but this article is about Hood and his response and questions have to be asked why he didn't reveal this wealth of information months ago. murphyslaw
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Mon 4 Jun 12

Tricky Dicky says...

I wouldn't give tuppence for either Hood or Caisley. An accountant who can't account and a Lawyer who doesn't know the law. This "spat" was to be expected. Hood wasn't pushed out, he ran for the door when a propitious opportunity arose. The report was supposed to be compiled by independent auditors so we have to assume it is true. Of course, Mr Coulby will put some spin on it and Mr Hood will take umbrage that he is being singled out as the fall guy. But Mr Hood failed and is now gone. End of. Mr Coulby is in charge so let's get moving forward. This is not "Risk" or "Monopoly" but about one of the hearts that makes Bradford beat. The Bradford fans deserve better. They have saved the club once, if needs be they'll do it again - with or without so called directors. Mudslinging over - let's pull together and save this club. The next utterances from Mr Coulby should be positive ones.
I wouldn't give tuppence for either Hood or Caisley. An accountant who can't account and a Lawyer who doesn't know the law. This "spat" was to be expected. Hood wasn't pushed out, he ran for the door when a propitious opportunity arose. The report was supposed to be compiled by independent auditors so we have to assume it is true. Of course, Mr Coulby will put some spin on it and Mr Hood will take umbrage that he is being singled out as the fall guy. But Mr Hood failed and is now gone. End of. Mr Coulby is in charge so let's get moving forward. This is not "Risk" or "Monopoly" but about one of the hearts that makes Bradford beat. The Bradford fans deserve better. They have saved the club once, if needs be they'll do it again - with or without so called directors. Mudslinging over - let's pull together and save this club. The next utterances from Mr Coulby should be positive ones. Tricky Dicky
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Mon 4 Jun 12

oatesingham says...

Tricky Dicky wrote:
I wouldn't give tuppence for either Hood or Caisley. An accountant who can't account and a Lawyer who doesn't know the law. This "spat" was to be expected. Hood wasn't pushed out, he ran for the door when a propitious opportunity arose. The report was supposed to be compiled by independent auditors so we have to assume it is true. Of course, Mr Coulby will put some spin on it and Mr Hood will take umbrage that he is being singled out as the fall guy. But Mr Hood failed and is now gone. End of. Mr Coulby is in charge so let's get moving forward. This is not "Risk" or "Monopoly" but about one of the hearts that makes Bradford beat. The Bradford fans deserve better. They have saved the club once, if needs be they'll do it again - with or without so called directors. Mudslinging over - let's pull together and save this club. The next utterances from Mr Coulby should be positive ones.
well said.
[quote][p][bold]Tricky Dicky[/bold] wrote: I wouldn't give tuppence for either Hood or Caisley. An accountant who can't account and a Lawyer who doesn't know the law. This "spat" was to be expected. Hood wasn't pushed out, he ran for the door when a propitious opportunity arose. The report was supposed to be compiled by independent auditors so we have to assume it is true. Of course, Mr Coulby will put some spin on it and Mr Hood will take umbrage that he is being singled out as the fall guy. But Mr Hood failed and is now gone. End of. Mr Coulby is in charge so let's get moving forward. This is not "Risk" or "Monopoly" but about one of the hearts that makes Bradford beat. The Bradford fans deserve better. They have saved the club once, if needs be they'll do it again - with or without so called directors. Mudslinging over - let's pull together and save this club. The next utterances from Mr Coulby should be positive ones.[/p][/quote]well said. oatesingham
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Mon 4 Jun 12

Shipley Paul says...

We did have a semi positive statement from Mr. Coulby last week revealing a potential investor, but as we all know, professional sport is not, on the whole, a profitable thing. We will be kept in the dark, we will be told only what they want us to know and ultimately The Bulls will still rely on financial propping up by this said investor or investors. Super League is fast becoming an elitist Premier league for the top 5 clubs, all of whom have a big money backer propping them up.
We did have a semi positive statement from Mr. Coulby last week revealing a potential investor, but as we all know, professional sport is not, on the whole, a profitable thing. We will be kept in the dark, we will be told only what they want us to know and ultimately The Bulls will still rely on financial propping up by this said investor or investors. Super League is fast becoming an elitist Premier league for the top 5 clubs, all of whom have a big money backer propping them up. Shipley Paul
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Mon 4 Jun 12

Bullcity says...

Sounds like the ex chairman is speaking sense & truth.The offer of Warrington for Bateman is worrying from the playing point of view but reassuring if we need some cash desperately.
If the new reigeme takes us into admin then they are indeed worse than their predecessors in terms of financial control.
Come on Caisley --clear the air --where are the investors ? How much do you really need ?
Give the team a clear road ahead so we can finish in the top 8. Sort out the players and the coaches contract.
Seems to me plenty of Gob re old board but no action re the part that matters the fans, players & coaching staff.
Where are you Mr Caisley or is it the Scarlett Pimpernel?
Sounds like the ex chairman is speaking sense & truth.The offer of Warrington for Bateman is worrying from the playing point of view but reassuring if we need some cash desperately. If the new reigeme takes us into admin then they are indeed worse than their predecessors in terms of financial control. Come on Caisley --clear the air --where are the investors ? How much do you really need ? Give the team a clear road ahead so we can finish in the top 8. Sort out the players and the coaches contract. Seems to me plenty of Gob re old board but no action re the part that matters the fans, players & coaching staff. Where are you Mr Caisley or is it the Scarlett Pimpernel? Bullcity
  • Score: 0

7:56pm Mon 4 Jun 12

oddshapedballs says...

Why do people on here feel they are entitled to know the full details of the goings on at Odsal? Yes i agree that supporters need to be kept in touch when there are solid facts that are not confidential.
If the company I work for were negotiating i wouldnt expect to know anything about this until the deal was signed and sealed.
Why do people on here feel they are entitled to know the full details of the goings on at Odsal? Yes i agree that supporters need to be kept in touch when there are solid facts that are not confidential. If the company I work for were negotiating i wouldnt expect to know anything about this until the deal was signed and sealed. oddshapedballs
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Mon 4 Jun 12

the anglian says...

I said 12 months ago that If you have a bean counter in charge you end up with one thing, a person who will hide facts, '
"hide" finances, hide the truth, doesn't care about the product and uses people (already factored the sale of Bateman- and whoever else into his excuses) but hey, if the books look good at the end of it - who cares.
I said 12 months ago that If you have a bean counter in charge you end up with one thing, a person who will hide facts, ' "hide" finances, hide the truth, doesn't care about the product and uses people (already factored the sale of Bateman- and whoever else into his excuses) but hey, if the books look good at the end of it - who cares. the anglian
  • Score: 0

8:28am Tue 5 Jun 12

raisemeup says...

Tricky Dicky wrote:
I wouldn't give tuppence for either Hood or Caisley. An accountant who can't account and a Lawyer who doesn't know the law. This "spat" was to be expected. Hood wasn't pushed out, he ran for the door when a propitious opportunity arose. The report was supposed to be compiled by independent auditors so we have to assume it is true. Of course, Mr Coulby will put some spin on it and Mr Hood will take umbrage that he is being singled out as the fall guy. But Mr Hood failed and is now gone. End of. Mr Coulby is in charge so let's get moving forward. This is not "Risk" or "Monopoly" but about one of the hearts that makes Bradford beat. The Bradford fans deserve better. They have saved the club once, if needs be they'll do it again - with or without so called directors. Mudslinging over - let's pull together and save this club. The next utterances from Mr Coulby should be positive ones.
Well said Tricky, it's time for us all to put differences aside and get on with saving our club.

When the club faced this type of situation in 1963 the collective focus was 100% behind saving us from extinction. At that time we had champions of the cause who led by positive ideas, and a passionate desire not to let us fold.
That's what we need, not claims and counter claims, it soon becomes a fight over who is right, not what is right for us the supporters and the community of Bradford.
[quote][p][bold]Tricky Dicky[/bold] wrote: I wouldn't give tuppence for either Hood or Caisley. An accountant who can't account and a Lawyer who doesn't know the law. This "spat" was to be expected. Hood wasn't pushed out, he ran for the door when a propitious opportunity arose. The report was supposed to be compiled by independent auditors so we have to assume it is true. Of course, Mr Coulby will put some spin on it and Mr Hood will take umbrage that he is being singled out as the fall guy. But Mr Hood failed and is now gone. End of. Mr Coulby is in charge so let's get moving forward. This is not "Risk" or "Monopoly" but about one of the hearts that makes Bradford beat. The Bradford fans deserve better. They have saved the club once, if needs be they'll do it again - with or without so called directors. Mudslinging over - let's pull together and save this club. The next utterances from Mr Coulby should be positive ones.[/p][/quote]Well said Tricky, it's time for us all to put differences aside and get on with saving our club. When the club faced this type of situation in 1963 the collective focus was 100% behind saving us from extinction. At that time we had champions of the cause who led by positive ideas, and a passionate desire not to let us fold. That's what we need, not claims and counter claims, it soon becomes a fight over who is right, not what is right for us the supporters and the community of Bradford. raisemeup
  • Score: 0

8:55am Tue 5 Jun 12

deano-41 says...

murphyslaw wrote:
georget44 wrote:
Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see.
he also said that nothing was on the table about bateman going to the wire but thats come out (worlds worst kept secret).i think he's been lieing through his teeth & still is.the bulls fans are like mushrooms kept in the dark & fed on ****!!!!
lets see what else comes out of the woodwork in the next few weeks we can't let our most promising players go we need to hang on to them and hope we get more sponsors.
[quote][p][bold]murphyslaw[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]georget44[/bold] wrote: Well that puts a slightly diferrent gloss on it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]It just confirms what we all knew. Hood never reveals a thing unless he's backed into a corner. He has held a practice of keeping fans in the dark throughout his time as Chairman. Now bit by bit his misgivings will be revealed for all to see.[/p][/quote]he also said that nothing was on the table about bateman going to the wire but thats come out (worlds worst kept secret).i think he's been lieing through his teeth & still is.the bulls fans are like mushrooms kept in the dark & fed on ****!!!! lets see what else comes out of the woodwork in the next few weeks we can't let our most promising players go we need to hang on to them and hope we get more sponsors. deano-41
  • Score: 0

2:59am Sat 9 Jun 12

arhmen aleg says...

So the fans who have saved the club temporarily are now subject to this pathetic shambles of disclosure.
Where are these audited accounts to December 2011?
It would appeaer an image rights tax bill may have suddenly appeared.Guessing.
but the Rwevenue are looking to close many loopholes of fiddling as has happened at Rangers.
And please tell us Mr Hood.
Was your directors loan account repaid to you when you sold the leasehold interest in odsal?
Bet those leaving made sure they took what was owed.To Them.
Be honest Be transparent.
Now wartch Caisley try to mop up for his own benefit.
Be ready fans.Hand NO money over but put it in a trust to be in a position to buy from the administrater.
Why should these stooges own a club ,their financial and legal incompetence has all but ruined
Be ready to go fans.
Caisley out.Fans In.
So the fans who have saved the club temporarily are now subject to this pathetic shambles of disclosure. Where are these audited accounts to December 2011? It would appeaer an image rights tax bill may have suddenly appeared.Guessing. but the Rwevenue are looking to close many loopholes of fiddling as has happened at Rangers. And please tell us Mr Hood. Was your directors loan account repaid to you when you sold the leasehold interest in odsal? Bet those leaving made sure they took what was owed.To Them. Be honest Be transparent. Now wartch Caisley try to mop up for his own benefit. Be ready fans.Hand NO money over but put it in a trust to be in a position to buy from the administrater. Why should these stooges own a club ,their financial and legal incompetence has all but ruined Be ready to go fans. Caisley out.Fans In. arhmen aleg
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree