You got your 1M bail out in 99 mate.

It's not, it's simply a poor attempt to deflect attention away from how Huddersfield actively lied about the deal with Kopczak by dragging up things like Bradford's breach of the salary cap about 10 years ago that was dealt with by the RFL at the time and in fact when appealed against the RFL agreed that the breach was of a technical nature and not an attempt by Bradford to purposely break the rules due to there being grey areas regarding 3rd party payments to players.

Or Bradford's financial troubles which were caused by a number of factors that were at the time of franchising could not be conceived of happening
However, Huddersfield LIED. They were untruthful. They bore false witness. They fabricated the truth.

In fact, as they're so used to changing their name, then maybe that should be their new club name "Huddersfield Liars"

Ahh, that's what's winding you up - worried the wheels have fallen off and nothing to show for it

We should concern ourselves with, the fact the RFL did not establish any facts before saying they (Huddersfield) should pay us £20k compensation and basically use the Gentlemans agreement clause by accepting it and moving on. We have done that, and from a politically good perspective , I admire that Omar Khan has taken a very honest and dignified stance on the whole sorry mess.

Basically we as the older supporters knew what it was to have the litigation situation held over your head for many years, ie the Harris affair which was in essence far less immoral than the CK affair.

I sympathise with the fans of Huddersfield and they do not deserve the uncertainty and additional angst brought about by poor management decisions not of their making.

I think that whilst we should continue to put the pressure on the RFL, particularly in light of the fact that Huddersfield get an extra £43k of our SKY compensation money per year.
Perhaps it's time the RFL behaved like a proper regulatory body and gave us our £600k back for 2014.
I would suspect this may well placate our board of Directors and our fans?

I think a lot seem to forget that Iestyn Harris had his own legal team which had gone over the papers and [presumablytold him he wasn't tied to Leeds and then a man as experienced as our then chairman, who presumably should have known the score, came to the same conclusion it was was a pretty big surprise lose the case, if we're honest. Though it never actually came to a full conclusion as, to have lost, would have risked bankrupting the club, chairman Hood had no choice but to concede.

An experienced guy like Chris Caisley and Harris' team both thought Iestyn was free to sign - the judge indicated differently. Rogue decision or two legal blunders? Was the law an ass? What would have been the outcome if the Bulls hadn't conceded and had had the cash to take it to an appeal under another judge? Rhetorical questions which we'll never know the answer to, but an interesting thought, never the less.

He can't eat pork

Well, we've asked the Rfl and Hudds for more money, as the £20k compensation wasn't enough.

I'm not at all sure what the point of that is. I mean, it's not as though Hudds are going to say, "sorry guv, you got us bang to rights with that and no mistake, here you are grab this £75k and we'll call it squits", is it?

If the final outcome of the hearing is that it definitely was an illegal tap-up, [and you never know just how greyish some blacks and whites can be with the RFL maybe it would it would result in a fine for Hudds, and them and us told to negotiate a proper fee - which would almost certainly then have to go to a tribunal for a decision.

However it turns out, I can't see anything to be gained by this letter.

I'm hoping that OK and GS have spoken to their legal representatives and they have been advised to send this correspondence. You never know, it may contain threats of legal action.

I agree though, I don't think anything will be resolved until the RFL investigation is complete, as any payment made by Huddersfield will be an admission of their wrongdoing.

It's not just compensation to the Bulls that is on the line, there's the small matter of tapping up a player in contract, and lying to the RFL when an investigation was carried out. Both Huddersfield and Kopout should be punished if the investigation finds them guilty.

It will be interesting watching this one develop.

So, paying Leeds all that money and bankrupting the club were totally unconnected? If we had stuck to our guns, and won, then the cash would have been flowing in the other direction.


There was no question of any "appeal" as the case was never heard. A preliminary issue was decided in favour of Leeds, if it had gone the other way, the case would have been thrown out, but it didn't, and so the case remained live and heading for the main event.

But it never got that far as out of the blue a settlement was then reached, which, although confidential, seemed to be widely leaked and if the leaks were anywhere near accurate, the word "capitulation" seems nearer the mark than "settlement" at least to me. Obviously it can only have been settled on legal advice, so who knows why it changed. We certainly had the cash - it would have cost money to go to the final hearing, but certainly nowhere near as much as we reputedly settled for, (and which reputedly we paid off, IN FULL, by annual instalments) and plus of course by settling that meant we had no chance of recovering from Leeds our legal fees, which won't have been cheap either, but which Leeds would have had to pay if they had lost.

This is just my personal opinion, but I reckon had we not paid the money to sign Harris in the first place, his not inconsiderable wages, and then the Harris settlement and both sides' legal costs then we would not have gone bust. So as far as I'm concerned the Harris deal ultimately did for the old club.

The final mystery is what happened with Leeds' case against Harris himself. Maybe I was on holiday abroad when it happened, but I have never heard a peep about what became of that. It must, obviously, have finished one way or another long before now, so I'd presume some deal must have been done, and they managed to keep it completely quiet. Would be interesting to know what that deal was.

Well, yeah, my musings weren't exactly intended as a legal report to be honest FA and when I put appeal I was really thinking about after the conclusion of the original case - as it was clearly not going our way, at least if we are to believe the leaked preliminary report, so if we [iwere[/i to win I would have expected it to be after an appeal.

In terms of having the cash to pursue the case, I'm pretty sure it was Peter Hood, who said at the time that we conceded the case, it was [ibecause if we'd lost, it could have bankrupted the club[/i and I don't think I ever said it was unconnected to our going under because it clearly was, along with how the 'Odsal settlement' money was spent, and other issues, it definitely played its part.

I certainly never heard anything about Leeds V Harris either, nor the Harris V his legal team action and I'd suspect both were dropped as it very much appeared to be a personal thing between the bigger players anyway. I think my original musings are still of interest though; how did two experienced legal people read the runes so wrongly [assuming it wasn't a blunder by the judge and what just [imight[/i have been the outcome if it had gone through to conclusion? If we'd won, well most likely no admin for starters, if we'd still lost, would we be here in any form at all..

Sorry, I wasn't having a go!

the preliminary issue wasn't leaked, it's a matter of public record:
[url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.htmlLeeds Rugby Ltd v Harris and another[/url
but in a nutshell, it seems we were arguing that the clause preventing Harris from signing for other clubs was void as being in restraint of trade. It was clearly a restraint of trade, but the judge decided it was NOT void.

Now you may be forgiven for thinking if that was the only point we had, then we would have folded shortly after that decision (July 2005). But we didn't. In fact, the settlement was not until May 2008, nearly three years down the track. So what it was that at that time made us decide to fold, I can only guess.


That comment was made by Hood at a Fans' Forum in Feb. 2008 - see [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/feb/01/rugbyleague.bradfordbullshere[/url. It was said [ibefore[/i the settlement, neither club was allowed to make any comment [iafter[/i the settlement but anyway the fact that losing would have bust us is something that would have been obvious from the start if you ask me. Yet at that forum Hood said he remained confident that the Bulls would not lose in court. Well maybe he would say that, I suppose.

It did emerge that a month earlier, in April 2008, the Rhinos offered to wipe out the whole claim in exchange for Sam Burgess [urlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/2258161.print/[/url


The most recent thing I have been able to find is [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/may/09/superleague.leedsrhinosthis report[/url in May 2008 which states that the Rhinos said that they were not abandoning the case against Harris; that Bradford were reserving the right to pursue legal action against him and the solicitors who advised him four years ago; that Harris had since dispensed with that firm's services and instigated legal action against it.


Indeed, but not just two experienced people, Harris's advisers were in the mix as well. The basic answer is, I suppose, in any complex commercial dispute, the court will rule one way or the other. It's not a case of getting anything "so wrong", in the vast majority of cases. It's just the court rules this way, instead of that. This is pretty normal. As would be, for example, an appeal court reversing that decision; and maybe further appeal courts in turn reversing it again. As indeed is even places like the Court of Appeal or even the Supreme Court ruling by majority decision (it must [ireally, majorly[/i pish a party off that loses a multi million commercial dispute when e.g. 2 out of 5 Law Lords agreed with that party!).

Don't forget that 50% of all litigants lose. In most cases they have not been negligently advised.