I'm not really sure of the legalities, but as 'Harrisgate' was ultimately settled out of court, wouldn't this mean that, to end the court case, Leeds would have withdrawn the accusation as part of the settlement? If the court never gave a final decision as to guilty parties, how can anyone be 'guilty' of anything? I may be being a bit thick on this but it seemed commonsense when I dreamed it up.....

All waaaayyy off beam.

* The case was Bulls v Rhinos. CC was in no way a party.
* It's a civil case, "guilty" don't enter into it (if you win, you don't owe money, if you lose, you do)
* The settlement was, we pay you loadsamoney, in return for you dropping the case. That's pretty much the opposite of "withdrawing" any accusations, more like Rhinos being vindicated (in hard cash) at their stance. (but yes, technically, nothing was established, except perhaps that we decided we were far more likely to lose, and they decided that it was worth doing a deal rather than run whatever risks they felt they faced). Still, and no figures were made public, but if the sums popularly bandied about are in the ballpark, then it was to my mind more of a capitulation than a pragmatic settlement between relatively equal combatants.

In its own way (yeah, I know) what you say vindicates my point.

The whole point was predicated on a suggestion, by other people, that the Harris business could be could be used to show an individual was "guilty" of "something" which would "prove" that individual to be "unfit to run a club". So, my point, that no-one was actually found guilty of anything (all be it that I arrived at that view by following a wrong path, and therefore for totally erroneous reasons) was still actually correct.

I rest my case, m'lud...

Bulls capitulated because of the existential risk of not doing so.

Quite how we found ourselves in that position, and who was responsible, is something I would very much like to see made clear. I have my own thoughts, but I suspect we will never hear the full story. I just hope that whoever screwed up has learned a real lesson for the future.

The only lesson learned will be how to CYA more successfully and its not just Caisley I'm getting at, its the other Directors involved in running the Club from the past as well as present!

I just read the piece in sky sports about how your new chairmen is going to take you forward and i must say not the most inspiring piece I have read.

Couple of things, what happens if the review says its unworkable and he will start talks with "potential" investers soon, I thought I read somewhere he had investers already.

I really hope you can get this all sorted, I have always like Bradford.

Is it a case of CC waiting for the report to come back regarding how much Brown stuff the club is in and if in too deep saying to investors keep money we will put club in admin and then put money in once administrators are satisfied.

Ah is this straight out of the Wakey book for surviving by any chance??

That was PH's stance at the time. To be honest, I wouldn't doubt that a judgement which left us paying the full claim, C £3.25m IIRC, would have left us in excrement valley without any obvious implement to be used as a means of extrication. Just how likely such a judgement would have been though, is something I'm not even qualified to hazard a guess about, in truth.

there was never any chance of it being £3.25M. Harris was required to sign for one year for them, one look at the accounts for that year without him shows that Leeds did not lose £3.25m, nor would they ever had made £3.25m, even before you take into account what they would have had to pay Harris, and all the other offsetting costs. and then theres the question of how much of that £3.25 was legal fees, which are massive if a claim does go to court. So as Adey says, the costs of fighting to get the £3.25m reduced to a sensible figure were far more than conceding and settling for an amount that kept the club going. and Leeds happily settled for much less. As for who is responsible, an organisation is lead from the top, so Caisley was responsible.

Interests in two different RL clubs was included in the post above in the list of reasons for a person being unfit, ie conflict of interest. It may simply be that the RFL see Caisleys player management activities, specifically Bradford players, as a similar conflict of interest, that make him unfit. which would be a very different reason from a lot of the others on that list, more inappropriate than unfit. And may explain the consultancy idea, where the brief would be carefully defined to exclude any conflict of interest.