Quote: G1 "I think I've canvassed my view sufficiently now but I shall continue to offer the alternative view of the affair as the poor bulls being victims of a shady Caisley and a massive conglomerate battering them unjustly into submission. Of course, history should be written by the victors but GH and Leeds have, to their credit, maintained a dignified silence about the settlement.'"
As indeed have the Bulls. There has never been any public statement or other comment from the club or its officials reported in the media since the one and only announcement that there had been a settlement. Which is as you would expect, since the settlement agreement will assuredly have contained confidentiality provisions.
Comments from fans and others speculating are of course something separate.
And anyway, unto the victor the spoils. As ever.
In the personal example I described, I too was a director throughout the whole mess. Therefore, I too could not escape my share of responsibility - even though I only stayed a director because I felt that way led to less harm being done than had I resigned. And I was not also a shareholder, unlike the usual situation around club boardroom tables. Doubtless the reader can form his or her own views about your comments on continuing as a director - and one with less clout than most - during a period when there was a crisis to resolve.
You used the term "shady Caisley". I have seen him referred to as many things, from the Second Coming to the Antichrist; "shady" is not an epithet I have seen applied to him before though, nor is it one I would choose to apply.
Anyway, I too have canvassed my view sufficiently. Anyone bored and objective enough enough to want to act as jury can doubtless form their own views, but nothing will change the outcome of Harrisgate and all its various manifestations, the outcome of which for one club at least proved severe in the extreme.
