Hood set to stand down

[The Swede]

Bradford chairman Peter Hood, many fans' scapegoat for the Bulls' much publicised money troubles, has confirmed that he expects to be stood down in the coming months.

The revelation comes after majority shareholder and ex-boss Chris Caisley called for an extraordinary board meeting where he and other shareholders and executives are expected to show a vote of no confidence in both Hood and chief executive Andrew Bennett.

http://www.superleague.co.uk/article/hoo...ford/24919

[Gateaux]

I am surprised it has taken so long and can't help but wonder why the need for all the "well I will probably end up going" if he knows that it is what is best why not just go now so the club can move on and hopefully get out of this mess!

[MossdaleRhino]

Well Caisley did say, did he not, that he would step in to sort things out at Odsal, but only if Hood went.? So this is no surprise to me. Trouble is, I detect that the supporters who pledged some money to the club are now concerned that some things are still being kept a little in the dark, and have no guarantee that this will be the end of the club's problems. So maybe this can be a fresh start for the club with a brighter future around the corner.

[Mary Hinge]

(04-22-2012 05:59 PM)Gateaux Wrote:  I am surprised it has taken so long and can't help but wonder why the need for all the "well I will probably end up going" if he knows that it is what is best why not just go now so the club can move on and hopefully get out of this mess!

Rather simplistic viewpoint that one man's departure will make so much difference. The answer lies with the RBS who called in their £1m overdraft. Having spent 25 years in banking, I would hope that the £500K they have raised will buy them some extra time. But at the end of the day, its not about who goes out, but who comes in. I wish them well. Rugby League without Bradford doesn't bear thinking about. They have enjoyed a far better Super League era than my team!

[Gateaux]

What one mans departure (well 2 mens at least it would seem) will probably do is make it easier for the club to show they are trying to move away from what has been going on which is probably what is needed in order to get new much needed investors in.

[MossdaleRhino]

(04-22-2012 06:28 PM)Gateaux Wrote:  What one mans departure (well 2 mens at least it would seem) will probably do is make it easier for the club to show they are trying to move away from what has been going on which is probably what is needed in order to get new much needed investors in.

To be brutally honest, If I was a Bulls supporter, this is probably how I'd be feeling right now!

[8ULL5HITT4]

Hood has spent years trying to clear up the mess that Caisley left, I heard it described as trying to bailout the Titanic with a teacup. I can't imagine that Caisley will do much other than put the club in administration.Hood has always said he would go if the right person came along but I doubt thats Caisley. Lets hope my concerns are unfounded. Just as things were looking up on the field, a bloodless coup comes along. Added to this Caisley was the agent for the Burgess brothers.......which suggests a conflict of interests.

[HailThePocketRocket]

whether RBS gives them extra time or not probably depends on how much of their overdraft was secured against Odsal. If the whole £mil was then they need to provide alternative security or they won't lend - let's face it, everyone wants the banks to lend responsibly etc

I think this is maybe a PR move rather than a deep change at the Bulls... a lot of people are blaming Hood for the mess (although was he responsible for the Harris debacle or was that the sanctimonious Caisley?) but I don't really believe that one or two men changing can really see a seismic shift in operating policy.

Or maybe it can.... I hope for their sake it can.

[Mary Hinge]

(04-22-2012 06:57 PM)HailThePocketRocket Wrote:  whether RBS gives them extra time or not probably depends on how much of their overdraft was secured against Odsal. If the whole £mil was then they need to provide alternative security or they won't lend - let's face it, everyone wants the banks to lend responsibly etc

If the bank had a charge over Odsal, they wouldn't have released it to be sold without acceptable replacement security in place.

[HailThePocketRocket]

It is interesting what sort of "security" Odsal was. You're quite right, if RBS had a legal charge over the ground then they could have blocked the sale to the RFL so they clearly did not have such a legal charge.

Perhaps this is some of the "irresponsible lending" that a state-owned bank has now got to clamp down on.