Why is a secret?

And - any of the lawyers on here, could the Bulls have actually won the case, had they not caved in?

They had to fold. The consequences of losing would be administration (oh the irony). With hindsight - going bust then may have been the better option.... (discuss?)



If Leeds lost it would just have cost Caddick part of his annual income. They could afford to lose (although the longer things went on the more confident they seemed to get) - was that confidence in their case or confidence they could just financially outlast the Bulls? or a combination of both?

Stephen Coulby at the bottom of this article:



"I also know the figures for that Harris-Leeds deal and it is not the reason the club’s in this state. We would have done things differently (re Harris) in hindsight but we could cover it due to the increase in TV money"



[urlhttp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/bradford-bulls/coulby-calls-for-clarity-as-bulls-continue-their-fight-1-4466587[/url

I've wondered this for a long time. Could it be that We might have won the case against Leeds and in fact Caisley was proven right? Did Hood et al force Caisley out when in fact under his stewardship we could have gotten through it! Administration then versus administration now being the worse case scenario that could have happened.



Perhaps Caisley wanted to take it to a conclusion but wanted the support of shareholders and they bottled it. Sadly, we will never know!



Both sides have utter contempt for each other and because Hood has had almost free reign to blacken Caisley's name since he took over, directly and indirectly, we believe him. should we?

There has been too much CC baiting in my view. Half truths have been potrayed as facts and then expanded to fit a conspiracy theory. Perhaps we should judge when we have seen their plan? Just one other point was Peter Hood on the board when we signed Harris? If so he is just as much responsible as any other member of the Board.

The direct financial consequences caused us a problem - but not fatal. The indirect consequences - JP leaving, the ruling that Harris' (3rd party) wage actually counted on the salary cap - causing the squad to suddenly need to shed player contracts to get under the cap again, having to replace with cheaper deals, less quality on the pitch, lower standard of fare, etc etc started the decline.



The Harris deal - short term benefits but direct & indirect consequences which outweighed the benefits (with hindsight)

The current plan which has been released so far from the CC consortium is:



Tasker (admin/back room), Noble (playing side) and Preston(an actor) will conduct a review and then we will come up with a plan.



Is that a good plan?



Of course the Hood option is : We have a good medium/long term business plan which will see us in good stead once we have overcome the short term issues.



These are our current options.



See any you like?

The question whether the Bulls could have won the Leeds case is sterile and stale. We will never know what advice they were given when they decided to fold, it was a big surprise to me (especially how bullish (sorry!) Caisley and others had been throughout) but given the sums involved all you can presume is that a very learned friend had advised at no doubt great cost that the game was not worth the candle.







I always thought that claim was the biggest load of hokum ever. "We could cover it"?? Well, yes, but hardly a relevant point, if what you want to know is the effect on the club's finances!!



Hypothetical Illustration:

Club X receives £1m Sky money. This is due to go up to £1.5m

Result, Club X has £1.5m to spend.



But then Club X has to pay £1m in compensation and legal costs.

Result, Club X has ONE MILLION POUNDS LESS to spend.



"But don't worry, we can pay it, cos the Sky money's gone up" is to me the most pointless, irrelevant and irritating slant on that situation. What he was really saying was "It's OK, as we can blow a large slice of what would be our Sky income, that we would have been able to use for the benefit of OUR club, on paying off Leeds and lawyers".



And anyway, we now know that, ATEOTD, we could NOT afford to pay it, as if that money was still in our coffers, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Who would the et al have been? At the time, Hood had around 7% of the shareholding and Bennett was not then significantly in the mix. Caisley has, I believe maintained around 25% throughout, so I struggle to understand where the 'Hood et al' bloc comes from to force Caisley out.

Yes, Coulby also states Caisley wanted to step down in 2004 and was persuaded to stay on. This undermines the theory that Hood forced him out or that having been forced out he has conducted a vendetta because of it.

Indeed. Having now read the Coulby article, it's clear that the current directors were in a position to control the board by 2010 (having by then acquired 25% of the shares between them), but this was not the case in 2006. Either Caisley did step down / jump ship (am I right in remembering some parting shot from Caisley about how the reasons why he was leaving would "soon become apparent"?), or he must have been pushed by some of those now apparently supporting him.