I went last night and what I saw made me deeply concerned we won't have a club very shortly. It may well be the case that Caisley had a plan - review by BG, then admin, Tasker and Noble to come in etc, liabilities dropped, share holdings clarified and so on. It was pretty much set out in the press when they unseated Hood.

However, I think the supporter response and admirable loyalty to Mick Potter and back room staff etc after yesterdays coup de grace has unsettled some - probably Noble - hence the cancellation of the players meeting. BG doesn't care - he's a professional IP and will make money whatever happens. But if you believe that Caisley will definitely ride in and that all this is pre-prepared I think you're vastly under estimating how fluid and contingent this situation is now. If Noble feels it will tarnish his previous history with the Bulls and if Caisley is completely demonised and walks away, BG may well shut up shop, take his slice and clear off, as there will be lots more insolvencies for him to make money on elsewhere.

I think there was a moment when we might have changed things and that was at the point of the pledge, we needed but didn't have, for a variety of reasons, an alternative supporters body who was constitutionally able and willing to mount a challenge to the existing board, to call for the money to go to the supporters body and then force some transparency from the Board and negotiate the possibility of partial supporter ownership. I understand the reasons why this proved not to be possible but regret profoundly the fact we weren't able to seize that moment.

We may well have to re-form the club and if that's the case I suggest supporters ownership is the only way forward, as it's becoming increasingly apparent those that live in the hope of some millionaire wandering in to save us, before subsequently being benevolent enough to invite supporters input are being somewhat unrealistic in their expectations.

A desire amongst everyone involved to move on and make a new start seems to ensure this never happens whenever any sports club comes out of the other side of an administration period, whatever dodgy looking things may have gone on during it.

People don't want to hear Guilfoyle say Caisley is not going to acquire the club. They want to hear Caisley say it, and swear it. If BG is telling the truth and the whole truth, then the single biggest impediment to sorting the mess out is now Caisley's silence.

If the man thinks anything about the club or anyone else, can I urge him to come out NOW and confirm he is not in the frame, nor will he ever be. In straight, unequivocal words so no one can accuse him of being disingenuous or playing games with semantics.

At some future time, he may choose to tell us why he chose to put the club into administration if he had no intent himself of buying it, or indeed why he ousted the previous board if he had intention of owning or running it. Or even why it WAS his intention, but he changed his mind or got cold feet or whatever. But that is for another day.

For now, until and unless he makes an unequivocal statement, I suggest many people will continue to believe he is ready to pounce at the last minute. And that will continue to fuel the fires of the vitriolic (and probably -or at least I hope - largely unfair) backlash against Noble and I suspect to a lesser extent Tasker from tomorrow, as well as to deter people who might want to take positive steps from doing so.

So it's all down to you now Chris: make your play; or confirm you are out.

And I look forward to Guilfoyle confirming that maybe two or three new bids have "suddenly" been thrown into the ring.

Incidentally, I cannot believe Guilfoyle would deliberately ignore potential bidders, and refuse to treat with them. He knows full well that an aggrieved party, if they had proof, would almost certainly complain to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, alleging professional misconduct, quite apart maybe from the High Court. That is surely a risk someone in his position of trust as an officer of the Court would not wish to take, and therefore I surely cannot conceive that he would?

Caisley is without doubt calling the shots here ! As was said months ago in a previous post about GT and BN taking over the posts of coach and chief exec. How can BG not have been influenced by CC over this, too big a coincidence for me.

Adey, it was in no way meant to be a dig at you or other members of your board. I fully appreciate it is a fairly thankless task trying to run a Trust and persuade even a small minority of the fan base that it is worthwhile. I know that our board are very grateful for the help you gave to us when we were establishing our Trust.

I guess the question I was asking was around how much help or not you had received from SD bearing in mind when we were setting up this is what they advocated for us, although we were not established in time to actually do anything about it.

Sorry if I caused offence, it was not meant. I guess having been through tthe Administration thing ourselves and having had to listen to people painting us a less than true picture of the actual circumstances the club was in, it all seemed a bit familiar.