FORUMS FORUMS



  
FORUMS > Bradford Bulls > This is why Caisley shouldnt be allowed near the club £2.5m
58 posts in 5 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
Subscribe | Moderators: Admin
RankPostsTeam
International Star1795No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 201114 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Apr 2021Jan 2021LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: stevo#4 "I dont have any evidence. I spoke directly with the people (notably the player) involved in the "saga" at the time it was going on.'"


Leeds were going to take both Harris and us to court. We settled, but Leeds said they were still going to go after Harris. He in turn blamed his solicitors for advising him and said he was going to sue them. We had already shown that Leeds were prepared to settle, and thats probably what happened on the quiet with the solicitors PI insurance paying Leeds.

I still have trouble with the sums though. Leeds had the option to sign him for twelve months, no more, and they had to pay the same rate as Cardiff, a basic of £200000 plus bonuses which you have to net off the income they lost through him not playing for them that year. so according to your source their losses were 1,500,000 minus £350,000 which is £1,150,000 compensation from Harris/his ex solicitors. that is a lot of money for one year by the time you have added back his salary of surely over £300,000 for that year, its back up to £1.5M. No wonder Leeds wanted to be sensible. It would not surprise me that the whole thing was £500,000 in total ie us 350,000 and Harris £150,000 from PI, not per year. If not then his ex solicitors are paying through the nose for PI insurance, oh dear.

but thanks for your posts, its helped my understanding of the whole issue even if it hasnt changed my guestimate.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman9565No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Dec 2019Dec 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



The whole Harris saga could and should have been sorted out without going to court.

In any event what should have happened - and ought to be the case for any disputes between RFL member clubs - is mandatory independent arbitration, including binding results of said arbitration on both parties. Whoever replaces Lewis should make damn sure such a rule is in place to prevent anything like this happening again. I got blasted on the Leeds board a while ago for daring to suggest that even though it looked like Leeds might win the case, they should drop the whole thing. It is simply not worth the negative impact its had on the Bulls.

Even in standard commercial agreements the use of mandatory arbitration (at least before any consideration of going to court) is quite common. I find it bizarre that in a relatively small, underfinanced sport like RL, member clubs are apparently able to blast each other into non-existence by following ridiculously expensive court actions.

RankPostsTeam
Club Coach850No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 200520 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jan 2014Jul 2013LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: BrisbaneRhino "The whole Harris saga could and should have been sorted out without going to court.

'"

The problem is, the biggest part of it was!!! The BUlls were never found by a court to have induced Harris to break his contract, nor was Harris found to be breaching his contract. they were both setteld out of court. IMO Harris only settled because the bulls had and this weakened his position! The only court judgement was that Harris was not having his trade restrained by leeds inserting the first option to the agreement.

if it had gone to court, at least we could have seen who was right or wrong, and just how bad CC's judgemnet was. as it is, he's always got the defence of " we would have won if Hood hadnt bottled it"

RankPostsTeam
Club Coach4003
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 200520 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Nov 2024Nov 2024LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: isaac1 "The problem is, the biggest part of it was!!! The BUlls were never found by a court to have induced Harris to break his contract, nor was Harris found to be breaching his contract. they were both setteld out of court. IMO Harris only settled because the bulls had and this weakened his position! The only court judgement was that Harris was not having his trade restrained by leeds inserting the first option to the agreement.

if it had gone to court, at least we could have seen who was right or wrong, and just how bad CC's judgemnet was. as it is, he's always got the defence of " we would have won if Hood hadnt bottled it"'"


Well the as far as I know Caisley refused to go to Court thus weakening the Bulls position, without Caisley there the case was considerably weakened, the Club had no option but to settle out of Court in the Whinos favour, Caisley never had a defence, he was the one who "bottled" it

RankPostsTeam
International Star1795No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 201114 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Apr 2021Jan 2021LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Blotto In view of Judge Grays ruling that clause 5 applied, and given that Harris had not complied with Clause 5 there was no way Leeds could lose a breach of contract claim against Harris. I cannot comment on the inducement issue, but Caisley is a solicitor and will know only too well what defending such a claim, so I would have done exactly the same. Which are strange words for me to write as whilst I was a Caisley fan until about 2007 I most definitely am not now.

Isaac1it was not just restraint of trade that were put as arguements against the enforceability of that clause, uncertainty (the amount Leeds would pay him under the contract clause could not be precisely calculated) and lack of consideration (ie Leeds gave Harris nothing in exchange for that clause). Gray ruled that it could be calculated with reasonable certainty, and that Harris had received the benefit of two years higher pay with Cardiff than at Leeds so had received consideration.
once he had ruled that the clause was enforceable it was shooting fish in a barrel time for Leeds.

RankPostsTeam
Club Coach1020No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 200520 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2022Feb 2022LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: martinwildbull "but thanks for your posts, its helped my understanding of the whole issue even if it hasnt changed my guestimate.'"


No problem at all.
Take a look at this link: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ulls_back/
As you can see the three installments were well documented
Where they show on the BB's accounts I do not know - Im not an accountant and I have no intention to be.

I do know the outcome of Harris v his solicitors, but as this is a discussion about BB - we'll leave that there.
Quote: martinwildbull "but thanks for your posts, its helped my understanding of the whole issue even if it hasnt changed my guestimate.'"


No problem at all.
Take a look at this link: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ulls_back/
As you can see the three installments were well documented
Where they show on the BB's accounts I do not know - Im not an accountant and I have no intention to be.

I do know the outcome of Harris v his solicitors, but as this is a discussion about BB - we'll leave that there.


RankPostsTeam
International Star1795No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 201114 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Apr 2021Jan 2021LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: stevo#4 "No problem at all.
Take a look at this link:
I can guess the outcome of that one... solicitors always win. If they dont their PI insurance covers it. its called a win win situation. Which brings me back to the question if Harris had recourse to his solicitors, why didnt we?

I did have a look at that article, but it only states that that there were three installments not how much. Another article somewhere said it was equal instalments, hence my calculation using that and the accruals figures in the Bulls accounts. The cash flow statements in the Bulls accounts support a figure of around that amount too, and in case you hadnt guessed i am an accountant.

and btw Caisley responded to that article by saying that Harris was not an excuse any longer for poor performance on and off the field. The fact that the settlement was probably mostly treated as a cost in the accounts several years before gives that a small element of truth. But only small.

RankPostsTeam
International Star26No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 201213 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2012May 2012LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Someone posted the court documents from the Leeds V Harris V Bradford case but i cant see the link to them.

Could that person please do so again so I can print them and show a leeds fan at work who is adamant Leeds didnt get anything from us or the WRU for his tfr.

Thanks

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman9565No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Dec 2019Dec 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



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.

RankPostsTeam
International Star300
JoinedServiceReputation
Apr 201213 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Jun 2014Jun 2014LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Quote: bowlingbull "Someone posted the court documents from the Leeds V Harris V Bradford case but i cant see the link to them.

Could that person please do so again so I can print them and show a leeds fan at work who is adamant Leeds didnt get anything from us or the WRU for his tfr.

Thanks'"


www.5rb.com/case/Leeds-Rugby-Ltd ... ldings-Ltd
Quote: bowlingbull "Someone posted the court documents from the Leeds V Harris V Bradford case but i cant see the link to them.

Could that person please do so again so I can print them and show a leeds fan at work who is adamant Leeds didnt get anything from us or the WRU for his tfr.

Thanks'"


www.5rb.com/case/Leeds-Rugby-Ltd ... ldings-Ltd


RankPostsTeam
International Chairman14145No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 200123 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2020Oct 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



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... eusa_think.gif

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?

RankPostsTeam
Player Coach3224
JoinedServiceReputation
Aug 200519 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Oct 2018May 2016LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



I suspect they were already viewing the antics of BBH, and that chubby little welshman with distaste, and were perfectly happy for you to receive a legal handbagging....

[i"The case presented a classic conflict between player and club. Its main interest lies in the restraint of trade findings. Did the law require this star player to be protected against a restriction accepted with professional advice? The judge saw it as a fair deal from which Harris had benefited considerably. Leeds had waived a valuable contract with 2 years to run, giving the player the chance of better pay at Cardiff (£200K pa plus bonuses) and membership of the national union team. If he was required to go back to Leeds the contract guaranteed that Harris would be no worse off than if he had stayed at Cardiff."[/i

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman14145No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 200123 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
Aug 2020Oct 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



£3.2m plus costs is hardly "Handbagging", any more than blasting someone with a bazooka at point-blank range is likely to lead to just some bad bruising for the recipient.

Think I'll stick with "Blasting another club into oblivion", if its all the same to you.

Maybe the RFL was as unhappy with Caisley as Caddick was, and so were entirely at ease with seeing one club totally destroy another?

And you'll get no bonus points on here for quoting reasons why Caisley seemingly got it so badly wrong; most of us came to realise that ages ago, which is one of the reasons why he is not being universally welcomed as a white knight riding to the rescue.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 200223 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
May 2024Oct 2019LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



Indeed. In fact, has Caisley ever uttered a single word of regret or any syllable of acceptance that he did actually get the Harris thing at all wrong? I can't readily recall one, so presumably his position is still that there was nothing wrong with the signing.

RankPostsTeam
International Chairman7594
JoinedServiceReputation
Dec 200123 years
OnlineLast PostLast Page
May 2021May 2021LINK
Milestone Posts
0
100
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Signature
TO BE FIXED



I have my doubts that the Kaiser has uttered a single word of regret on any matter ever.

58 posts in 5 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
Subscribe | Moderators: Admin
58 posts in 5 pages 
<<   PREV  NEXT   >>
Subscribe | Moderators: Admin



All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.

RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.

Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM

You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.



Please Support RLFANS.COM


9.57666015625:10
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
8m
Film game
Boss Hog
5765
15m
Transfer Talk V5
Seth
517
60m
Ground Improvements
phe13
198
Recent
Fixtures
Smithers99
10
Recent
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
Theeaststand
4048
Recent
Shopping list for 2025
HU8HFC
5588
Recent
Shirt reveal coming soon
Khlav Kalash
2
Recent
Salford
Smiffy27
59
Recent
Salary Cap Changes Blocked - 11 votes to 1
NickyKiss
9
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
16s
Shopping list for 2025
HU8HFC
5588
30s
Getting a new side to gel
Bullseye
1
32s
Fixtures 2025
Bull Mania
9
38s
Pre Season - 2025
Hullrealist
191
41s
Rumours and signings v9
Mark_P1973
28902
1m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
tad rhino
2611
1m
Salary Cap Changes Blocked - 11 votes to 1
NickyKiss
9
1m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63268
2m
Salford placed in special measures
poplar cats
111
2m
2025 Fixtures
Jemmo
1
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Shirt reveal coming soon
Khlav Kalash
2
TODAY
Opening Championship and League One Fixtures for 2025 Released
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Getting a new side to gel
Bullseye
1
TODAY
Fixtures
Smithers99
10
TODAY
Writers required
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
2025 Fixtures
Jemmo
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
POSTSONLINEREGISTRATIONSRECORD
19.65M 1,709 80,15614,103
LOGIN HERE
or REGISTER for more features!.

When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
RLFANS Match Centre
 Thu 13th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
20:00
Wigan
v
Leigh
 Fri 14th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
20:00
Hull KR
v
Castleford
20:00
Catalans
v
Hull FC
 Sat 15th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
15:00
Leeds
v
Wakefield
17:30
St.Helens
v
Salford
       Championship 2025-R1
18:00
Toulouse
v
Widnes
 Sun 16th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R1
15:00
Huddersfield
v
Warrington
       Championship 2025-R1
15:00
Bradford
v
LondonB
15:00
Featherstone
v
Doncaster
15:00
Oldham
v
York
15:00
Sheffield
v
Halifax
15:00
Barrow
v
Hunslet
 Thu 20th Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
20:00
Wakefield
v
Hull KR
 Fri 21st Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
20:00
Warrington
v
Catalans
20:00
Hull FC
v
Wigan
 Sat 22nd Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
15:00
Salford
v
Leeds
20:00
Castleford
v
St.Helens
 Sun 23rd Feb 2025
     Mens Super League XXX-R2
14:30
Leigh
v
Huddersfield
       League One 2025-R1
15:00
Cornwall
v
Workington
15:00
Dewsbury
v
Crusaders
ALL SCORES PROVIDED BY RLFANS.COM (SETTINGS)
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds-Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield-Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
SL
20:00
St.Helens-Hull KR
Sat 8th Mar
SL
17:30
Catalans-Leeds
Sun 9th Mar
SL
17:30
Warrington-Wakefield
SL
17:30
Wigan-Huddersfield
Thu 20th Mar
SL
20:00
Salford-Huddersfield
Fri 21st Mar
SL
20:00
St.Helens-Warrington
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
St.Helens 1 40 4 36 2
Wigan 1 32 4 28 2
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 27 1032 275 757 52
Toulouse 26 765 388 377 37
Bradford 28 723 420 303 36
York 29 695 501 194 32
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Swinton 28 484 676 -192 20
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 1 6 10 -4 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
8m
Film game
Boss Hog
5765
15m
Transfer Talk V5
Seth
517
60m
Ground Improvements
phe13
198
Recent
Fixtures
Smithers99
10
Recent
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
Theeaststand
4048
Recent
Shopping list for 2025
HU8HFC
5588
Recent
Shirt reveal coming soon
Khlav Kalash
2
Recent
Salford
Smiffy27
59
Recent
Salary Cap Changes Blocked - 11 votes to 1
NickyKiss
9
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
16s
Shopping list for 2025
HU8HFC
5588
30s
Getting a new side to gel
Bullseye
1
32s
Fixtures 2025
Bull Mania
9
38s
Pre Season - 2025
Hullrealist
191
41s
Rumours and signings v9
Mark_P1973
28902
1m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
tad rhino
2611
1m
Salary Cap Changes Blocked - 11 votes to 1
NickyKiss
9
1m
BORED The Band Name Game
Boss Hog
63268
2m
Salford placed in special measures
poplar cats
111
2m
2025 Fixtures
Jemmo
1
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Shirt reveal coming soon
Khlav Kalash
2
TODAY
Opening Championship and League One Fixtures for 2025 Released
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Getting a new side to gel
Bullseye
1
TODAY
Fixtures
Smithers99
10
TODAY
Writers required
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
2025 Fixtures
Jemmo
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!