CC acted as agent for the payers, I'd suggest he had a very powerful influence, especially when you factor in the fact (which I assume you agree with?) that you can't keep a player who doesn't want to stay and it is a wast of time to try and enforce contracts in that situation. I don't, btw, [iblame[/i Caisley for that, he was acting in a private capacity as agent for the player so did his duty to the player, and no doubt his fee, by acting as he did, but to pretend he bears no responsibility is risible.

Your statement about the 'the thirty odd year old half who didn't want to be here' is total nonsense btw (I assume you mean Orford?), he was only here for a few months so I think it's fair to assume he [idid[/i actually want to be here for the first season, even if it ended, in injury, in May. There is no doubt his leaving (we were 4th, at the time, remember) ended any hopes we had, and then I've no doubt whatever, all the shilly shallying and lie telling emanating from down under at the end of the season killed our chances of getting a 'quality' half installed for the next season season. I count two seasons directly affected.

Disastrously costed from a Bulls point of view. You were on a very cushy number pre the agreement as I always maintained, despite the denials by some.

Even so, you still got a good few years of rent and upkeep free existence followed by a hefty, if misjudged, pay out.

So nerrr!



10% of that could help a club like Keighley no end.

The only 'fact' is that they were contracted to the Bradford Bulls and what is nonsense is your understanding of a 'contract'. It is not only not a waste of time to enforce contracts it is essential if you do not want a queue of players forming at your door who have been told by agents they can earn more elsewhere despite being contracted to the club. Your understanding of a 'contract' means that we are obliged to pay poor and/or injured players until their contract expires whilst those who want to cancel their contracts when it suits them can do so. In Sam and George's case it appears we have recieved little in the way of compensation. This has laso led to speculation regarding Tom. Any player is seen as a potential target because the club will not stand behind its own contract (Andy Lynch). This is catastrophic in any business but doubly so in professional sport. Orford and George Mimmis knew what they were dealing with when they up against Bradford Bulls.

On Orford, the nonsense really is that the club started the season with one halfback having failed to recruit or develop a successor to Paul Deacon and Iestyn Harris over the previous two seasons. I remember we were 4th and I remember where we finished the season and who played 6 and 7 for most of the remainder. Chris Cailsey's fault? Hardly!

What I'm perplexed about is the way he makes Peter and Ryan out to be the baddies for the decline.

I know many of our supporters don't give the current management the credit they so richly deserve for first and foremost ensuring that we still have a club to support in these most difficult of times.

I'm ceratin we would have gone under had Caisley still been at the helm post 2006 and it's for the best when I think about that Peter Hood held up his hand and came onboard to steady a very much off course ship from the waters/waves of financial oblivion.

I do however get a sneaking suspicion Ethan (based on very little evidence before anyone starts) that he's trying to get back into the supporters good books over his past comments made about them/us.

Could 2013 be 1989 all over again I wonder?

More to the point, why the hell did he feel the need to wade in with his "Open Letter" rant attacking the present administration, when the original T&A piece effectively made Leeds out to be the bad guys and most responders were playing hell at Leeds and Hetherington!

A cynic might certainly wonder if these are not the opening shots in a campaign to try and wrest control -maybe on the assumptions (which may be näive ones) that the club cannot last much longer if it turns in more results like 2010 and the assets could be picked up from an Administrator free of liabilities? Although such an arrogant rant, totally lacking in any humility and with not the slightest admission of any historic responsibility, would hardly be likely to endear him to most of the more clued-up fans who how have a much better understanding of what went on financially and otherwise?

Good job I'm not a cynic or conspiracy theorist, eh?

Got to be careful here - af

See above - af

As far as I can recall in the occaisional talk with Bulls management that is correct! and most of what I know on this wasn't via Stuart.

I really urge people to be very very very careful on this subject, unless you have clear proof. If it was to be true (and I make no comment on that one way or the other), it would be a real game-changer as far as some people's perception of Caisley was concerned, so its probably not the sort of thing that you'd want to allege lightly? Or not have the facts quite right?

I took the approach of asking (in my list of questions to CC) just how much about the "interlocking agreements" he and the club knew about and had seen when Harris was signed, and speculated on the differing consequences for our subsequent defence depending on just how much was known if they knew less, or more.

I Agree Adey but as far as I know that this is correct, the other snippet I also remember was that if Caisley had waited 6 more weeks Harris would have been totally free of any obligation to the Whinos, again if true this really puts him on the back foot and being a Solicitor he should have read the small print!

In law you are quite correct as regards contracts, though I believe my view reflects the reality on the ground; that any player who has no wish to be at a club is best let go, as he's unlikely to give his best, contract or no contract. The number of clubs who can afford to stick a 'wantaway' into the second team and let him stew are few and far between and I certainly wouldn't include the Bulls in that list. By allowing them to leave you do, at least, lose your liability to pay them and are able to bring in someone who [idoes[/i want to be at the club.

With respect to the Orford problem, it wasn't just he wanted to leave but the fact he denied this whilst his agent was arranging deals in Australia. That this extended over the next pre-season was why it affected the following season. Did anyone say that was Caisley's fault btw?, for mine it was Orford and no-one else, save perhaps Mimmis.

As their agent, I would think CC was instrumental in moving Sam and George to Sydney, though. As the largest shareholder in the club it seems a strange thing to do and certainly shows a conflict of interest. Whether they had long had dreams to go or Caisley put the idea into their heads I don't know, but if it was a long standing wish, then he was only doing his best for his contracted players. I guess we'll never know.

I really don't have a problem with this. There's certainly some degree of conflict of interest there, but as an agent he is obliged to do his best for the players he represents. And whether the idea was theirs or his he did do that. Unfortunate for us, but it's in my shrug shoulders pile.

It seems very clear to me, Caisley's response is pretty much on the money (pardon the pun).

What is clear with Harrisgate, is that nobody, but CC, GH and very few others are privy to the precise details of both the compensation package, what was discussed between Hood and CC and subsequently agreed other parties. Even more clear, is that irrespective of that outcome, you cannot reflectively operate a business that is rear view mirror facing. It's akin to a divorcee blaming their ex hubby for their future.

The club was hamstrung, no question. Given that, all the more reason to change direction and take the club forward. As I have said many times, that doesn't require huge swathes of cash, simply inventiveness, commitment, common drive, energy the belief to take positive risks. We have played far too safe for far too long and simply whined about Caisley when it suits.

What is also evident is that we have solely concentrated on a recruitment programme at the expense of other elements of what is required to make a sports brand unique. And that recruitment has been woeful, absolutely abominable. No blame can be laid at CC's door for that or indeed anybody else's.

As for Sam and George, the club held their contracts and as such were in the box seat irrespective of any external influences. Hardly a new scenario given teams around the world deal with this daily. That we didn't procure a figure commensurate with their value, is our fault.

The club have forgotten the core building blocks of what projected them into the public psyche nationally.

There are two sides to every story and fair play to Chris Caisley for putting across his side in a pretty candid manner.

As for Reading Bullette, it doesn't require Professor Brian Cox to work out who that is.

As for for the lengthy list of questions to him, perhaps email him Adey directly c/o Walker Morris (his email isn't hard to find) or indeed pop into Leeds and ask him yourself. He may even surprise you with an answer. But then you won't do that.

Can answer one - Caisley flatly refuted Peacock's allegations when I interviewed him a few years ago.

Well I've been to Walker Morris to speak to CC before on Bulls matters. Maybe we should write to him and ask him what he thinks? Would make for an interesting exclusive on here...

Its difficult to get a balanced perspective on Caisley. I dont think there are many individuals that could justifiably claim to have done so much good for a club, and then undermine it in the way he did with one act of supreme folly.

It's a pity he didn't see fit to give more comprehensive account in his letter to the T&A. Mentioning only the Harrisgate affair left an awful lot unexplained to be honest, particularly if the reason for it was any sort of attempt to clear the way for a return to the club. Given his stake in the club though I'd guess if he really did want to re-join the board it would be a formality, with or without explanations.

I'd be happy to run the piece and interview him if the relevant interview was set up.

But didn't feel the need to seek a public apology or retraction of the statements? You would have thought a solicitor would know how damaging such libellous comments could be to his good name and would seek to ensure the public record was corrected, wouldn't you?

I'm just saying, is all

What Peacock said about his exit from the club have never sat right with me, Peacock had always sated he would play in the NRL and also that he would Finnish his playing days at his home time club!

He left the club at 27 probably at the time he would have left any way, that's why i tend to believe Caisley more on this one!

Maybe he didn't want to take Hetherington on again so soon after his and the clubs massive step down over the Harris cock up!

Meh, an imbalanced response to a load of imbalanced criticism.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Good idea. I think Adey's list of questions would keep him busy for an hour.

There is a problem with the phrase "flatly refuted" though, as it sounds more like a simple denial rather than an actual refutation, which would require some sort of evidence, at the very least corroboration from a third party, perhaps, and not just saying it ain't so. As it stands it's one word against another.

Get him to the next fans forum!

Give him a chance to put his version across and answer some of the questions the fans have and if it all gets a bit knarly with the current board!