...And would you when a bigger wedge was on offer and an opportunity to follow your dream?

The club has shown no loyalty to him by showing no ambition. He has left now, and the club will benefit from it rather than him leaving for nothing next year. So no, I don't mind.

How exactly do you work that out?

Well into the valley we go that's the last big star to leave and we are now down to the bare bones. Some dead wood and some class has left this year but I've been generally supportive of the club on those decisions. Only time will tell now whether we are now a club destined to scrap around the bottom of the table scraping together a squad or whether the club are able to use this as an opportunity to build a new squad for the future able to compete for years to come.

Personally I like to think we are on the verge of a very exciting time at Bradford but we'll have to wait and see.

Best wishes to Burgess but I've just my next door neighbour to back over my Tape copy of Gladiator with his nissan sunny. It was a rubbish pirate copy anyway half way through one of the fight scenes someone in front gets up to go to the toilet.

Obviously we'll never know as the settlement with leeds for Harris was undiclosed as is the compensation for Burgess but I wonder if it would have been more financially beneficial for the club to just let him go last year?

Then again the ramifications of such action may have been much worse.

Sam is just doing what 99.9% of the population would do when offered a chance to develop their career.

I don't see why anyone should really have a problem with him, he's not shirked his performances or refused to play for us to force a move, and we have received a fee, and he may even come back.

I'm yet to see much evidence that keeping someone who would rather be elsewhere works out best for the player involved, or the club - so what would the benefit of him staying have been? If this had all happened and he hadn't gone in the end he would probably have ended up a target for some supporters next season if and when things don't go so well, along the lines of "he wanted to leave, he isn't really trying etc etc".

No question this is a good move for both Bradford and Sam himself.

Knowing Sam as I do, there is no question that if the Bulls had asked Sam to fulfill the remainder of his contract he would have with the same commitment he always has.

The fact that an NRL offer was on the table either this year or next always meant that we would be looking for a fee. He hasn't broken his contract, only made clear that he would like to move to oz at the end of his current one.

I for one will be sad to see him go, but only more sad as I will not be able to follow his progress due to the television rights not being with Sky.

All the best Sam and I look forward to the day we see you in your "home" colours again!!!

How can you dispute it? The signings over the last couple of years have hardly shown great ambition.

I'm looking at this in a positive light. As much as the club denies any financial trouble I think that the reported £200,000 will be much more usefull in the long term than one more year out of Sam.
*edited for typo

The only issue I would take with your post Adey is the phrase "to the surprise of many in the legal profession".

Where have you got that from?

Must say on my reading of the preliminary issue it came as no surprise that Mr Justice Gray held what he did and the real surprise was that the Bulls lawyers raised such an ill fated preliminary issue at all.

Sad he has gone but give the guy some respect. He hasn't chosen to be a big fish in a small pond but taken a brave step to test himself in the toughest environment he can.

Hopefully, more will follow him and IMO people like Fielden & Peacock should have done the same.

Sorry, was referring to the situation before the existence and nature of the various agreements was generally known. Up to that point, several lawyers I spoke to (and some others whose views I read as well as the odd earth pig or two... ) seemed sure that what they assumed the "agreement" to be would be voided for undue restraint of trade. As indeed did I.

Having read Mr Justice Gray's decision, I have since said quite a few times that even I could understand why he held what he did. As no doubt will all the rest of your lot, who do it for a living.

As for why the lawyers raised the preliminary issue - well wasn't it more the case that it was Leeds Rugby who brought the two actions against Harris, and the "inducement" action against the Bulls? And that both parties had agreed to first have the court rule on whether the contract/s were void on the various grounds of restraint of trade, uncertainty and lack of consideration? If no contract, then the three actions Leeds brought would fail. What alternative did the Bulls have, other than to insist it went straight to full hearing or to concede and settle OOC? That's how I read it, anyway?

Surely the real issue was whether the Bulls - or at least our Chairman - had indeed been made aware pre-signing of the contract of which Leeds alleged they had induced breach? That is surely crucial? And, if they had, whether the club (or Chairman) acted recklessly or negligently in proceeding nevertheless, without the assurance that the contract would indeed be void? And who made those decisions and who told whom what about the risks?

And then, after the Mainstream ruling, why the club nevertheless found it necessary to settle with Leeds, when that case appeared to restrict damages for induced breach to cases where the defendant had sought to inflict financial loss on the claimant? Must admit I felt extremely let down after that.

Have I got that broadly right?

I thought the Bulls pushed for it ("the unlawful restraint issue) to be tried as a preliminary issue. I can understand why Leeds would've agreed to that tactically. You're right, if they= Bulls had succeeded it would've likely ended the whole litigation.

However, I can't see how it would ever have succeeded. It seemed pretty clear to me that it was a valid restraint, Harris having benefitted significantly for having entered into it.

The Bulls could've simply ran their defence and saved the costs of the failed restrain issue.

I never thought the Mainstream case was as fatal to Leeds case against the Bulls as most commentators on here did. I can't recall how I distinguished it but I had a lengthy debate with FA on here at the time. I can only assume the Bulls legal team shared my view or, as you say, why settle? Unless, of course, the Bulls simply lost the stomach for the fight.

id be happy with that.

I'de be happy with any positive news coming out about new signings.

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 70,00.html Surprised no-one else has confirmed this yet!

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 70,00.html Surprised no-one else has confirmed this yet!

Gutted, and increasingly more worried about the 2010 squad.

Good luck to him anyway.