Quote: BrisbaneRhino "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.'"
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?