Because of three factors which together were subsequently determined to represent a breach of the cap. All factors where the RFL determined the club believed they were within the cap at the time and where there was no intent to break the cap. The club signed Morley believing themselves to be within the cap. That was, after all, why the RFL meted out pretty well the minimum penalties available to them and publically said what they did. Compare and contrast Wigan. Will be interesting to see what comes out of the current HMRC/RFL activities, and whether they unearth further examples across the game of clubs believing themselves to be cap-compliant but subsequently transpiring that they were not?



Agreed; and no. Does not need you to tell us that - the history books already prove it.



I've posted my views on that at length on RAB, which you frequent, so I'll not waste further time and space on here repeating myself.

That will be very interesting but do you seriously think there will be back-dated penalties?????
I honestly don't no matter how many wigan,saint's,bulls or hull fans bleat about it!!

I suspect the fans of two at least of those clubs will have cause to look a bit closer to home when it all comes out (if it ever does).

But no, I don't. I suspect that both the number and the identity of the clubs implicated - plus the fact that the SC Auditor has already signed off on earlier years - will mean it would be both highly embarrassing and impracticable.

But that still does not mean that it may well transpire that certain clubs DID exceed the cap, possibly significantly even if those now-identified breaches go unpunished. My guess is that any such breaches will be explained away as being "...where the RFL determined the clubs believed they were within the cap at the time and where there was no intent to break the cap." You might just recognise those words...?

Just re-read your post and my reply and perhaps I was a little defensive. I thought you were muddling how GH might've pulled the wool over Iestyn's eyes with the dispute with the Bulls, two separate issues, but clearly you weren't so, sorry.

Iestyn was naive. GH was either very shrewd or took advantage. regardless, we reached a point where to get what he wanted Iestyn signed what he did.

From that point forward my opinion remained consistent. Iestyn was guilty of a clear breach and the Bulls had an arguable case to answer for Inducing it. Leeds had every right to pursue it.

In reality Caisley was completely culpable. Even if he suspected the contract between Leeds and Iestyn wouldn't be upheld he should've had the courtesy to approach us. He stuck two fingers up at us, rolled the dice and lost, or you guys lost. From a man in his profession it was very questionable judgment.

Which is probably the main reason he resigned as chairman and not the reason's he gave for his resignation.

You might suppose that. I could not possibly comment...

[size
(Except I already did in my earlier post, when I suggested he paid for it with his job. I of course should have prefaced that with "....many people believe..." if I am to avoid the need to retain the likes of Gareth's services...)[/size

he f*cked up.

It still leaves a slight sour taste in the mouth that many people still consider leeds the bad guys in all that, trying to ''de-stabalise the bulls''.

Now thats the bit that makes me chuckle, the thought that Iestyn had the faintest idea what "image rights" were all about.

Have I ever told you the story about the Iestyn and the bath that was advertised in the Leeds matchday programme ?

Rubbish. everyone knows Hitler was much better at Fullback

What I didn't agree with at the time was that IMO Leeds did not want Iestyn to come back. If he had it would have disrupteda team that was gelling with the emergenve of Burrow, McGuire and Sinfield. (Remember at the time Sinfield regularly played SO). His return would hasve disrupted the salary cap and probably meant that Leeds would have to release youngsters at the time. Before Iestyn went to the Bulls there was a lot of debate about whether Leeds should sign him and IIRC the majority didn't want him to re-sign. That is why i felt at the time that GH should let it go.

More rubbish spread by people on here at the time who knew nothing.

I said it at the time, and I will maintain it. I personally in the position I was in at a company, was approached and had meetings with GH on the subject of sponsoring Harris on his return.

Of course that could have been some elaborate bluff in order to cover themselves should a court case arise, but I doubt it.

Was that for image rights?

I stand by the statement that IMO Leeds did not want IH back at the time. Their agreement with IH meant that they were committed to taking him back and that is probably why they were approaching third parties to offload some of the cost if required. Just because they were preparing for his potential return based on an agreement signed three years earlier does not mean that they would have considered that option if there had been no agreement in place.

You may want to think about what I said in future rather than taking a bit of info you had and jumping to conclusions about the background to that info.

If there had been an internet in the 1980's I shudder to think what the discussion regarding Dean "Judas" Bell would have been like.

Who approached you, Phil Daly?