In law you are quite correct as regards contracts, though I believe my view reflects the reality on the ground; that any player who has no wish to be at a club is best let go, as he's unlikely to give his best, contract or no contract. The number of clubs who can afford to stick a 'wantaway' into the second team and let him stew are few and far between and I certainly wouldn't include the Bulls in that list. By allowing them to leave you do, at least, lose your liability to pay them and are able to bring in someone who [idoes[/i want to be at the club.

With respect to the Orford problem, it wasn't just he wanted to leave but the fact he denied this whilst his agent was arranging deals in Australia. That this extended over the next pre-season was why it affected the following season. Did anyone say that was Caisley's fault btw?, for mine it was Orford and no-one else, save perhaps Mimmis.

As their agent, I would think CC was instrumental in moving Sam and George to Sydney, though. As the largest shareholder in the club it seems a strange thing to do and certainly shows a conflict of interest. Whether they had long had dreams to go or Caisley put the idea into their heads I don't know, but if it was a long standing wish, then he was only doing his best for his contracted players. I guess we'll never know.

I really don't have a problem with this. There's certainly some degree of conflict of interest there, but as an agent he is obliged to do his best for the players he represents. And whether the idea was theirs or his he did do that. Unfortunate for us, but it's in my shrug shoulders pile.

It seems very clear to me, Caisley's response is pretty much on the money (pardon the pun).

What is clear with Harrisgate, is that nobody, but CC, GH and very few others are privy to the precise details of both the compensation package, what was discussed between Hood and CC and subsequently agreed other parties. Even more clear, is that irrespective of that outcome, you cannot reflectively operate a business that is rear view mirror facing. It's akin to a divorcee blaming their ex hubby for their future.

The club was hamstrung, no question. Given that, all the more reason to change direction and take the club forward. As I have said many times, that doesn't require huge swathes of cash, simply inventiveness, commitment, common drive, energy the belief to take positive risks. We have played far too safe for far too long and simply whined about Caisley when it suits.

What is also evident is that we have solely concentrated on a recruitment programme at the expense of other elements of what is required to make a sports brand unique. And that recruitment has been woeful, absolutely abominable. No blame can be laid at CC's door for that or indeed anybody else's.

As for Sam and George, the club held their contracts and as such were in the box seat irrespective of any external influences. Hardly a new scenario given teams around the world deal with this daily. That we didn't procure a figure commensurate with their value, is our fault.

The club have forgotten the core building blocks of what projected them into the public psyche nationally.

There are two sides to every story and fair play to Chris Caisley for putting across his side in a pretty candid manner.

As for Reading Bullette, it doesn't require Professor Brian Cox to work out who that is.

As for for the lengthy list of questions to him, perhaps email him Adey directly c/o Walker Morris (his email isn't hard to find) or indeed pop into Leeds and ask him yourself. He may even surprise you with an answer. But then you won't do that.

Can answer one - Caisley flatly refuted Peacock's allegations when I interviewed him a few years ago.

Well I've been to Walker Morris to speak to CC before on Bulls matters. Maybe we should write to him and ask him what he thinks? Would make for an interesting exclusive on here...

Its difficult to get a balanced perspective on Caisley. I dont think there are many individuals that could justifiably claim to have done so much good for a club, and then undermine it in the way he did with one act of supreme folly.

It's a pity he didn't see fit to give more comprehensive account in his letter to the T&A. Mentioning only the Harrisgate affair left an awful lot unexplained to be honest, particularly if the reason for it was any sort of attempt to clear the way for a return to the club. Given his stake in the club though I'd guess if he really did want to re-join the board it would be a formality, with or without explanations.

]

I'd be happy to run the piece and interview him if the relevant interview was set up.

But didn't feel the need to seek a public apology or retraction of the statements? You would have thought a solicitor would know how damaging such libellous comments could be to his good name and would seek to ensure the public record was corrected, wouldn't you?

I'm just saying, is all

What Peacock said about his exit from the club have never sat right with me, Peacock had always sated he would play in the NRL and also that he would Finnish his playing days at his home time club!

He left the club at 27 probably at the time he would have left any way, that's why i tend to believe Caisley more on this one!

Maybe he didn't want to take Hetherington on again so soon after his and the clubs massive step down over the Harris cock up!

Meh, an imbalanced response to a load of imbalanced criticism.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Good idea. I think Adey's list of questions would keep him busy for an hour.

There is a problem with the phrase "flatly refuted" though, as it sounds more like a simple denial rather than an actual refutation, which would require some sort of evidence, at the very least corroboration from a third party, perhaps, and not just saying it ain't so. As it stands it's one word against another.

Get him to the next fans forum!

Give him a chance to put his version across and answer some of the questions the fans have and if it all gets a bit knarly with the current board!