A bit of Caisleyology from the archives: Oct 2011: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... t/?ref=rss www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y/?ref=rss March 2010: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss T&A archives only go back to 2009. I have an old database from when the RLFANS news aggegator was still running kicking around somewhere, I'm sure I still had it going in 2006. I'll see what else I can dig out.

A bit of Caisleyology from the archives: Oct 2011: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... t/?ref=rss www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... y/?ref=rss March 2010: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... k/?ref=rss T&A archives only go back to 2009. I have an old database from when the RLFANS news aggegator was still running kicking around somewhere, I'm sure I still had it going in 2006. I'll see what else I can dig out.

That is pretty much as I remember it. It was at the same time as the club was cutting the high earners from the wage bill and and selling who and what they could. Nobby left for Wigan closely followed by Stu Fielden and many others. The impression, and indeed statements from the club seemed to confirm, that the club had been run into the ground and was in imminent danger of going bust. I don't think there was any boardroom uprising to claim what was clearly a poisoned chalice.

OK, he leaves of his own accord with the club in imminent financial trouble. How does the 'vendetta' story hold water then? I'm not asking you specifically, just trying to work out the narratives that are constantly being spun here.

I'm with MB here in that I'm confused by some of the opinions of Caisley being expressed on here. I have absolutely no idea of what went on behind the scenes when he left the club (and , I guess, neither have most people). However, some insist that he is responsible for the club's plight because we "lost" the Harris court battle, even though in fact the case was never heard. We ended up paying Leeds the compo because we folded, no doubt for reasons of prudence, but we folded nevertheless. Caisley did not sell the Burgess brothers to Souths, the current BOD did, no doubt for a significant wad of cash.

I've never met Caisley, or any of the directors, and so have no axe to grind about any of them. But to paint Caisley as the devil in all this seems to me to be just plain silly.

You seem to be incorrectly informed the case was taken to court but the amount was not made public. See the verdict here rlhttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.htmlrl as it was ruled not a restraint of trade we had no choice but to negotiate.

That was the very first hearing. There was never no hearing concerning the £3.2m Leeds were seeking in compensation that was settled out of court.

That was a hearing to decide a preliminary issue. That was brought about by the Bulls alleging the Harris/Leeds contract was a restraint of trade. The Bulls lost that issue and the claim continued. The Bulls were disputing they had induced Harris to breach his contract which was the real substance of the case.

It stagnated for a while whilst another case on Inducement to Breach was determined by the House of Lords. When that case was determined Ferocious Aardvark and I disagreed about what the outcome of that case meant for the Leeds Bulls case* which remained stagnant for some time after that.

Eventually there was a settlement. The terms of that settlement were confidential but we know the Bulls made payment to Leeds by three instalments over three years as it's recorded in both companies set of accounts. Therefore, Glory Hunter is correct that the Bulls never lost the case because the case wasn't determined.

*I don't wish to imply that the representatives for Leeds, Bradford and Harris awaited the outcome of the discussions between FA and I on here before moving on with the case, but maybe they should've.

Is it??? The only thing I can remember seeing in either company is only tangential, which was Leeds having a curious trade debtor of £350k due for receipt after more than one year in the 2008 accounts; but there is no evidence that relates to the matter at hand, not least as it doesn't agree to anything showing, in reverse, in the Bulls' accounts.

The Bulls, in fact, never disclosed anything of any use as far as I could see although reference was made to the existence and, later, the settlement of the case. One could and did wonder whether it should have been better disclosed as an exceptional item (Companies Act should trump confidentiality clauses when it comes to accounting disclosures) but presumably it was somehow agreed the figure was not material.

Why is a secret?

And - any of the lawyers on here, could the Bulls have actually won the case, had they not caved in?

They had to fold. The consequences of losing would be administration (oh the irony). With hindsight - going bust then may have been the better option.... (discuss?)

If Leeds lost it would just have cost Caddick part of his annual income. They could afford to lose (although the longer things went on the more confident they seemed to get) - was that confidence in their case or confidence they could just financially outlast the Bulls? or a combination of both?

Stephen Coulby at the bottom of this article it is not the reason the club’s in this state. We would have done things differently (re Harris) in hindsight but we could cover it due to the increase in TV money"

rlhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/bradford-bulls/coulby-calls-for-clarity-as-bulls-continue-their-fight-1-4466587rl

I've wondered this for a long time. Could it be that We might have won the case against Leeds and in fact Caisley was proven right? Did Hood et al force Caisley out when in fact under his stewardship we could have gotten through it! Administration then versus administration now being the worse case scenario that could have happened.

Perhaps Caisley wanted to take it to a conclusion but wanted the support of shareholders and they bottled it. Sadly, we will never know!

Both sides have utter contempt for each other and because Hood has had almost free reign to blacken Caisley's name since he took over, directly and indirectly, we believe him. should we?

There has been too much CC baiting in my view. Half truths have been potrayed as facts and then expanded to fit a conspiracy theory. Perhaps we should judge when we have seen their plan? Just one other point was Peter Hood on the board when we signed Harris? If so he is just as much responsible as any other member of the Board.

The direct financial consequences caused us a problem - but not fatal. The indirect consequences - JP leaving, the ruling that Harris' (3rd party) wage actually counted on the salary cap - causing the squad to suddenly need to shed player contracts to get under the cap again, having to replace with cheaper deals, less quality on the pitch, lower standard of fare, etc etc started the decline.

The Harris deal - short term benefits but direct & indirect consequences which outweighed the benefits (with hindsight)