I came across this www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _comeback/ Has the Editor changed since then?? Appointed chairman in 1989, he presided over the most successful period in the club’s history, winning four Super League titles, two Challenge Cups and being crowned World Club champions three times. But that all came at a cost and the Bulls’ annual losses had become unsustainable by the time his reign came to an end this thread from 2 years ago most posters would see if their views are similar to now viewtopic.php?f=19&t=447425&tsmp=1334923896 Although Caisley's Dad and Diligaff have not been on for a while

I came across this www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... _comeback/ Has the Editor changed since then?? Appointed chairman in 1989, he presided over the most successful period in the club’s history, winning four Super League titles, two Challenge Cups and being crowned World Club champions three times. But that all came at a cost and the Bulls’ annual losses had become unsustainable by the time his reign came to an end this thread from 2 years ago most posters would see if their views are similar to now viewtopic.php?f=19&t=447425&tsmp=1334923896 Although Caisley's Dad and Diligaff have not been on for a while

Interesting reading back. I'd not change anything much at all in what I said then.

What ever happened to DILLIGAF?

Does it look like I give a f***

Bulls had to settle after the judge ruled the contract was not a restraint of trade as the Bulls would be liable to some extent surely? Maybe not to the extent they induced him as Leeds said but we were not cash rich to take the risk of a heavier settlement on less favourable terms?

Visiting the toilet a lot and noisily, according to Twitter (if I have my posters correct).

If you mean Gerbelly then you are correct

Yep, that's the one.

Provides an unrivaled live score service, too. Good chap, he is.

There's a whole interview with Caisley on sky sports website. I wonder if hoods seen that yet. I'm not quite happy with the idea of Caisley coming back tbh

Quote: Elz14_xxx "There's a whole interview with Caisley on sky sports website. I wonder if hoods seen that yet. I'm not quite happy with the idea of Caisley coming back tbh'" Old news, its the only one on there www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/7651072/

Quote: Elz14_xxx "There's a whole interview with Caisley on sky sports website. I wonder if hoods seen that yet. I'm not quite happy with the idea of Caisley coming back tbh'" Old news, its the only one on there www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... 6/7651072/

I think there was a comment about it in the last set of accounts the Bulls filed. I had it at the office. I couldn't identify any figures in the accounts though.

Not at all. That was only a preliminary point. One which the Bulls were foolish to take IMO but not one that really affected the Leeds claims of inducment against the Bulls. The settlement came some time after the preliminary issue and the Bulls fought for a while. The case was put on hold whilst the Mainstream case went to the House of Lords and some observers thought that decision strengthened the Bulls position

FWIW, as an interested observer who does some work in this field my view was that Leeds would easily succeed in proving breach of contract by Harris but proving inducment by the Bulls would be a different matter, though I think Leeds would have succeeded.

Even if Leeds did prove breach and inducement IMO damages would have been limited given that when those events occured Leeds surged to the title and posted record crowds. I know there might have bene an argument about lost sponsorship opportunities but then any damages would have been reduced by the wages Leeds hadn't had to pay Harris.

Given the Bulls regime change there appeared little appetite for carrying on the fight. Whether the consequences of losing that fight would have been as disatrous and in the figures reported is debatable but I have doubts they would.