If there is something in the contract then that would obviously apply, but I have no knowledge of the contents.

If he breaks his contract then the Bulls can claim from him what it costs them to obtain a replacement. Obviously that wouldn't include much if anything by way of salary, as that's swings and roundabouts, but there would for a start undoubtedly be administrative costs in acquiring a replacement player. Where bigger sums may come into it is what if his replacement were also from Aus, and we had to pay transfer/signing on fees? Seems to me that is a loss we could sue Orford for.

From memory weren't Leeds also suing Harris for all the millions they allegedly lost that they were going to make from marketing his image?

Not that I have any clue how far that got either. It may have settled or it may still be ongoing. I suppose if it did conclude it would all be confidentiality-clause wrapped up so we probably never will know.

I'm not suggesting there are any 'penalty clauses', to be honest I wouldn't think there would be. So far as I know when contracts are discussed, the term "standard" SL contract is mentioned as though there is some template.

There are laws about contracts (probably civil, rather than criminal) which deal with compensation, as the Bulls know only too well. In truth I don't think it would be difficult to show loss, particularly with the player not being upfront in the first place. If he had said "I want out" when he went back to Australia then I would suggest not, but as it is, the club will be hit by the loss of their main playmaker (just when they are trying to sell season tickets) and will be very fortunate to sign a player of similar quality at this late stage. Those two facts alone would show a de facto loss, surely.

Don't suppose there is any chance he was 'cohersed'?

Although there are similarities between the Harris and Orford deals there are many differences too.

Harris, on the nod from his legal team, was the one who said he didn't have a contract which is why Caisley went in for him (as well as to p off El Presidente). I think, given the view of Harris and his legal team, it's fair to say that it can't have been a clear cut decision as to whether he had a binding contract with Leeds, which isn't the case with Orford who knows full well he does have a binding contract.

In truth Leeds didn't want Harris back, with Burrow and McGuire taking the world by storm why would they? If only we had waited until Leeds said "oh actually I don't think we'll be taking that option". We might have had to pay a small fee or maybe not. However, with Orford it is quite different and I don't think there is any doubt that we want him to return, 'cos if he doesn't there will be a big hole in team.

From what I remember of the T&A reports at the time, I think Leeds were suing Harris, along with the Bulls who were also suing Harris, and bringing up the rear Harris who was suing his legal team (without whom, none of this would probably have left the ground).

I don't think it is helpful to overanalyse the comparison. The result is that a player under contract to one club was personally sued for a lot of money by that club for breaking the contract. (though we don't know what became of the case)


Not relevant. Leeds' case depended on them claiming, in legal papers, that they wanted him back and Bradford foiled them. You may think they lied in Court papers but I wouldn't recommend it.


You've a bad memory, then. I never heard of the Bulls suing Harris, nor did I ever read any report of Harris "suing his legal team".

I was given to understand that Harris's Agent at that time was a Solicitor, Caisley is a Solicitor who in his haste to put one over Caddick more than Hetherington ignored the fine print! Also apparently that if nothing had happened for a further 6 weeks Harris would have been a free agent and cost nothing save what he negotiated with the Club!

FA both were mentioned as 'options' in newspaper reports. dont think anything ever came of it but they were definitely mentioned at the time.

Shooting Hetherington up his personal harris with an elephant gun would equally be an option, but I was responding to the claims that the Bulls [iwere[/i suing Harris or he his lawyers, and not discussing options.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "I don't think it is helpful to overanalyse the comparison. The result is that a player under contract to one club was personally sued for a lot of money by that club for breaking the contract. (though we don't know what became of the case) Not relevant. Leeds' case depended on them claiming, in legal papers, that they wanted him back and Bradford foiled them. You may think they lied in Court papers but I wouldn't recommend it. You've a bad memory, then. I never heard of the Bulls suing Harris, nor did I ever read any report of Harris "suing his legal team".'" www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ust_Bulls/ It's in the sixth paragraph from the bottom of the article.

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "I don't think it is helpful to overanalyse the comparison. The result is that a player under contract to one club was personally sued for a lot of money by that club for breaking the contract. (though we don't know what became of the case) Not relevant. Leeds' case depended on them claiming, in legal papers, that they wanted him back and Bradford foiled them. You may think they lied in Court papers but I wouldn't recommend it. You've a bad memory, then. I never heard of the Bulls suing Harris, nor did I ever read any report of Harris "suing his legal team".'" www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ust_Bulls/ It's in the sixth paragraph from the bottom of the article.

I had the same recollection Bulliac.

What also stands out in that article is the alleged £1/2m for Leeds' legal costs to date. In the context of the value placed upon the "effect of the recession" as PH called it a\t the last forum.

Well, I still haven't heard of any action brought by Harris against his lawyers. If it had actually been issued, I'd have thought there would have been big publicity, but who knows.

So far as the 500K goes, this was by no means Leeds' costs to date, it was just the costs of the preliminary issue hearing which the Bulls, to their amazement, lost. So the award of costs would only have been in respect of costs Leeds had incurred in dealing with the preliminary issue, and not of the whole case, which would therefore be a whole lot more. What they would have been by the time the case folded, I shudder to think, and whatever they were, double it, as the Bulls had a legal team too and they won't have been working for nothing either.

?? How come Bulls paid Leeds £68k for the costs of the preliminary hearing, as soon as Mr Justice Gray's Decision was released?

I don't know what the figure was. It would normally be assessed by the judge on the dya the prelim hearing was concluded, though.

I lied. It was only rl£64k.rl

So the judge basically gave Caisley a direct answer to the 64,000 dollar question, then? Except it was pounds not dollars