Caisley is personally accredited as a RFL-recognised agent and lawyer. Not Walker Morris.

I expect that whatever is going to happen will happen in the next few days.
Caisley will have all his plans in place, he would not have made his move to demand an EGM otherwise.
It might be a prepack administation if he has the RFL on board or it might be an increase of the club's share capital, the increase to be taken up by an investor/s to ensure overall share control.

My guestimate of the amount paid in compensation/costs is around the £250 -360K mark. I think that some at least of this was reserved in the 2005 accounts which were the last of Caisleys chairmanship but were signed of by Hood in Feb 2007. For my guestimate I have used the published accounts accruals and deferred income within creditors due over one year and statements about the timing and amounts of both the Odsal deferred income (2003 - 9) and the payment of the compensation (2009 10 11). I could have done with a bit more detail about movements on this account, specifically the accruals element of the balances as that would have enabled me to narrow it down, the 2011 accounts may help when they come out.

The total damage is much bigger and despite Caisleys PR is still with us today.

Funny.

To round figures up, over the last 3 years we have paid three installments of £500,000 compensation to Leeds, totalling £1.5m.

The overall cost of the saga, including BB's liable for LR's costs can be totaled around about the £2.5m mark. The figures arent far off. I speak from experience rather than idle gossip. Have a look at Leeds' accounts, they have made around about £500,000 profit each year we have paid them. They're also running the "break-even" model that Ryan and the BB's speak about. It just so happens they've had a slight helping hand from the benefactor in BD6.

Where is your evidence for this in our accounts not Leeds?

Hood refers to the settlement in the 2008 accounts, and so all liabilities relating to it should be in there. liabilities are divided into those due within a year and those due over. so two thirds of any payout (the 2010 and 2011 payments) should be in the due over a year balances. those balances are £241601, not 1000000. Nor are there any massive changes in the due within a year balances, and much of that will be deferred income anyway, being season ticket money taken in 2008 but for the next season.

Wouldn't it really depend on the reasons for the Administration? If its purely to obtain complete control of the club then clearly credibility would be the least of his problems. But if we're bust, if the pledge was ill conceived, if there never was much prospect of extra investment?

I dont think anyone could credibly state with any confidense that they will keep our young talent.

I wonder what the RFL attitude would be to that if CC were on the board(chairman?) in future? There is a definite and very obvious conflict of interest if he represents Bulls' players in contract talks with, erm, himself...

I dont have any evidence. I spoke directly with the people (notably the player) involved in the "saga" at the time it was going on.

Why does Admin mean selling all our young players. Rangers have been in Admin for ages now and none of the playing squad have been sold.

Probably because anyone worth having from Rangers has gone (Just Jelovic). Will be a different story you have some players worth having. If it's HMRC that are instructing the administrators no doubt they will be ruthless with selling of assets. And i doubt much the the RFL will fastrack in new owners as they will only start vetting potential candidates once there is an agreement between new owner and administrators. This could drag on for a few weeks but guaranteed there will be a few wolves at door (not just Warrington).

Leeds were going to take both Harris and us to court. We settled, but Leeds said they were still going to go after Harris. He in turn blamed his solicitors for advising him and said he was going to sue them. We had already shown that Leeds were prepared to settle, and thats probably what happened on the quiet with the solicitors PI insurance paying Leeds.

I still have trouble with the sums though. Leeds had the option to sign him for twelve months, no more, and they had to pay the same rate as Cardiff, a basic of £200000 plus bonuses which you have to net off the income they lost through him not playing for them that year. so according to your source their losses were 1,500,000 minus £350,000 which is £1,150,000 compensation from Harris/his ex solicitors. that is a lot of money for one year by the time you have added back his salary of surely over £300,000 for that year, its back up to £1.5M. No wonder Leeds wanted to be sensible. It would not surprise me that the whole thing was £500,000 in total ie us 350,000 and Harris £150,000 from PI, not per year. If not then his ex solicitors are paying through the nose for PI insurance, oh dear.

but thanks for your posts, its helped my understanding of the whole issue even if it hasnt changed my guestimate.

The whole Harris saga could and should have been sorted out without going to court.

In any event what should have happened - and ought to be the case for any disputes between RFL member clubs - is mandatory independent arbitration, including binding results of said arbitration on both parties. Whoever replaces Lewis should make damn sure such a rule is in place to prevent anything like this happening again. I got blasted on the Leeds board a while ago for daring to suggest that even though it looked like Leeds might win the case, they should drop the whole thing. It is simply not worth the negative impact its had on the Bulls.

Even in standard commercial agreements the use of mandatory arbitration (at least before any consideration of going to court) is quite common. I find it bizarre that in a relatively small, underfinanced sport like RL, member clubs are apparently able to blast each other into non-existence by following ridiculously expensive court actions.

The problem is, the biggest part of it was!!! The BUlls were never found by a court to have induced Harris to break his contract, nor was Harris found to be breaching his contract. they were both setteld out of court. IMO Harris only settled because the bulls had and this weakened his position! The only court judgement was that Harris was not having his trade restrained by leeds inserting the first option to the agreement.

if it had gone to court, at least we could have seen who was right or wrong, and just how bad CC's judgemnet was. as it is, he's always got the defence of " we would have won if Hood hadnt bottled it"

Well the as far as I know Caisley refused to go to Court thus weakening the Bulls position, without Caisley there the case was considerably weakened, the Club had no option but to settle out of Court in the Whinos favour, Caisley never had a defence, he was the one who "bottled" it

Blotto In view of Judge Grays ruling that clause 5 applied, and given that Harris had not complied with Clause 5 there was no way Leeds could lose a breach of contract claim against Harris. I cannot comment on the inducement issue, but Caisley is a solicitor and will know only too well what defending such a claim, so I would have done exactly the same. Which are strange words for me to write as whilst I was a Caisley fan until about 2007 I most definitely am not now.

Isaac1it was not just restraint of trade that were put as arguements against the enforceability of that clause, uncertainty (the amount Leeds would pay him under the contract clause could not be precisely calculated) and lack of consideration (ie Leeds gave Harris nothing in exchange for that clause). Gray ruled that it could be calculated with reasonable certainty, and that Harris had received the benefit of two years higher pay with Cardiff than at Leeds so had received consideration.
once he had ruled that the clause was enforceable it was shooting fish in a barrel time for Leeds.

Quote ="martinwildbull"but thanks for your posts, its helped my understanding of the whole issue even if it hasnt changed my guestimate.'" No problem at all. Take a look at this link: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ulls_back/ As you can see the three installments were well documented Where they show on the BB's accounts I do not know - Im not an accountant and I have no intention to be. I do know the outcome of Harris v his solicitors, but as this is a discussion about BB - we'll leave that there.

Quote ="martinwildbull"but thanks for your posts, its helped my understanding of the whole issue even if it hasnt changed my guestimate.'" No problem at all. Take a look at this link: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ulls_back/ As you can see the three installments were well documented Where they show on the BB's accounts I do not know - Im not an accountant and I have no intention to be. I do know the outcome of Harris v his solicitors, but as this is a discussion about BB - we'll leave that there.

Quote ="stevo#4"No problem at all. Take a look at this link: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ulls_back/ As you can see the three installments were well documented Where they show on the BB's accounts I do not know - Im not an accountant and I have no intention to be. I do know the outcome of Harris v his solicitors, but as this is a discussion about BB - we'll leave that there.'" I can guess the outcome of that one... solicitors always win. If they dont their PI insurance covers it. its called a win win situation. Which brings me back to the question if Harris had recourse to his solicitors, why didnt we? I did have a look at that article, but it only states that that there were three installments not how much. Another article somewhere said it was equal instalments, hence my calculation using that and the accruals figures in the Bulls accounts. The cash flow statements in the Bulls accounts support a figure of around that amount too, and in case you hadnt guessed i am an accountant. and btw Caisley responded to that article by saying that Harris was not an excuse any longer for poor performance on and off the field. The fact that the settlement was probably mostly treated as a cost in the accounts several years before gives that a small element of truth. But only small.

Quote ="stevo#4"No problem at all. Take a look at this link: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ulls_back/ As you can see the three installments were well documented Where they show on the BB's accounts I do not know - Im not an accountant and I have no intention to be. I do know the outcome of Harris v his solicitors, but as this is a discussion about BB - we'll leave that there.'" I can guess the outcome of that one... solicitors always win. If they dont their PI insurance covers it. its called a win win situation. Which brings me back to the question if Harris had recourse to his solicitors, why didnt we? I did have a look at that article, but it only states that that there were three installments not how much. Another article somewhere said it was equal instalments, hence my calculation using that and the accruals figures in the Bulls accounts. The cash flow statements in the Bulls accounts support a figure of around that amount too, and in case you hadnt guessed i am an accountant. and btw Caisley responded to that article by saying that Harris was not an excuse any longer for poor performance on and off the field. The fact that the settlement was probably mostly treated as a cost in the accounts several years before gives that a small element of truth. But only small.

Someone posted the court documents from the Leeds V Harris V Bradford case but i cant see the link to them.

Could that person please do so again so I can print them and show a leeds fan at work who is adamant Leeds didnt get anything from us or the WRU for his tfr.

Thanks

My point wasn't about the ins-and-outs of the Harris case in particular. The point is that RFL member clubs should find it almost impossible to engage in legal proceedings against one another, as the rules should force them to use binding arbitration rather than resort to legal action.

Arbitration is far, far cheaper, and the rulings/findings of the arbitrators would be able to incorporate the fact that we are actually dealing with what are quite small businesses - i.e. no ridiculous monetary penalties would be imposed.

As it stands, it seems that RFL member clubs are able to resort to highly expensive legal action which ALWAYS results in a net outflow of cash from the game to lawyers. I just don't get it.

Quote ="bowlingbull"Someone posted the court documents from the Leeds V Harris V Bradford case but i cant see the link to them. Could that person please do so again so I can print them and show a leeds fan at work who is adamant Leeds didnt get anything from us or the WRU for his tfr. Thanks'" www.5rb.com/case/Leeds-Rugby-Ltd ... ldings-Ltd

Quote ="bowlingbull"Someone posted the court documents from the Leeds V Harris V Bradford case but i cant see the link to them. Could that person please do so again so I can print them and show a leeds fan at work who is adamant Leeds didnt get anything from us or the WRU for his tfr. Thanks'" www.5rb.com/case/Leeds-Rugby-Ltd ... ldings-Ltd

Indeed. Same as most folk never got it that the loss of profit to Leeds because Harris did not return to them was £3.2m, according to their legal action. That would have made Leeds far far and away the most profitable club the game had ever known, I guess, hade Harris actually returned to them. Must have been some absolutely unvelievable sponsorship deals on the table...



But the RFL as then constituted seemed to have no qualms about one SL club seeking to blast another into oblivion. Presumably it could happen again?

I suspect they were already viewing the antics of BBH, and that chubby little welshman with distaste, and were perfectly happy for you to receive a legal handbagging....

[i"The case presented a classic conflict between player and club. Its main interest lies in the restraint of trade findings. Did the law require this star player to be protected against a restriction accepted with professional advice? The judge saw it as a fair deal from which Harris had benefited considerably. Leeds had waived a valuable contract with 2 years to run, giving the player the chance of better pay at Cardiff (£200K pa plus bonuses) and membership of the national union team. If he was required to go back to Leeds the contract guaranteed that Harris would be no worse off than if he had stayed at Cardiff."[/i

£3.2m plus costs is hardly "Handbagging", any more than blasting someone with a bazooka at point-blank range is likely to lead to just some bad bruising for the recipient.

Think I'll stick with "Blasting another club into oblivion", if its all the same to you.

Maybe the RFL was as unhappy with Caisley as Caddick was, and so were entirely at ease with seeing one club totally destroy another?

And you'll get no bonus points on here for quoting reasons why Caisley seemingly got it so badly wrong; most of us came to realise that ages ago, which is one of the reasons why he is not being universally welcomed as a white knight riding to the rescue.

Indeed. In fact, has Caisley ever uttered a single word of regret or any syllable of acceptance that he did actually get the Harris thing at all wrong? I can't readily recall one, so presumably his position is still that there was nothing wrong with the signing.

I have my doubts that the Kaiser has uttered a single word of regret on any matter ever.