Quote: martinwildbull "apologies bulliac, my estimate was purely settlement, which is given as £550k for compensation and costs. our costs are give as £79K. even then there is scope for ambiguity as Coulby says that this is for related legal costs paid out 2005-8. in 2005 we were ordered to pay an estimated £64K for Leeds costs for the original hearing that established the breach. Now is this included in those legal costs or has it been given another title eg "Compensation"? Anyway, my total cost estimate is £550K + £79K + £64K
<coughs> In terms of the overall financial impact, I believe (though do not actually know) that Mr. Harris did not come for nothing, and did not play for nothing, and that his agent did not work for nothing. If indeed there was an additional cost to the club, then it needs to be added to these figures. The judge mentioned a figure, but I suppose he could have made it up. That figure did not include image rights money.
If Leeds's costs of the preliminary issue hearing itself were 64K then you can confidently say that their other costs of the whole litigation, as opposed to just one element of it, were a shedload more than 18K!
I must say that the statement is breathtakingly partial. I am particularly annoyed by thisThe costs to the club had, however, been absorbed by the business prior to the settlement being reached, leaving £550K to be covered going forward, and the budget for 2009 was prepared on a break-even position and full salary cap spend after allowing for the first payment to Leeds.”'"
No, the cost had NOT been bloody well "absorbed", if by that is meant we had somehow made it irrelevant, brushed it under a carpet or otherwise waved a magic wand to cause it to go away. It was a huge amount of CASH that went out of the door, and if we had not done it, then that cash would have been in our coffers going forward.
Would an extra million in the bank have made any difference to our situation? Absorbed my arrse.
