: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:52 pm  

rhinoms wrote:

So was breaching the cap to sign morley!!!

That was not why we breached the cap. People keep saying it will not make it any more true.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:56 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Harris was instrumental in the Bulls SL victory.

I think so too. We can see more clearly what we are missing now he has gone, even if he was never as good for us as he was for Leeds. Unfortunately, he catches the blame far too much for the consequences of his signing - as I continually said while he was playing for us. Too few seemed to agree though.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:57 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

That was not why we breached the cap. People keep saying it will not make it any more true.

You still "signed" a player for 6wks who played a key role in the GF and were found to have breached the salary cap that year were you not??
Imo you never got harris at his peak and do you think the signing was worth it???
As for the pooh you find yourselve's in now i don't think it's just down to harris or the grattan landfill.
Trusting the "best young english coach" in SL for 3 yrs has played a major part in your demise mate no matter how anyone try's to dress it up.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:08 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

One of the finest players to grace the field in the SL era - the way he ghosted past players was simply mind blowing - a truly gifted individual.

To say it was a pleasure to watch him play is an under statement - it was a privilige.

On another point he makes an excellent summarisor on the Sky - a coach in the making if ever there was one.

It's not often I agree with you David but you are spot on.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:08 pm  

rhinoms wrote:

You still "signed" a player for 6wks who played a key role in the GF and were found to have breached the salary cap that year were you not??

Because of three factors which together were subsequently determined to represent a breach of the cap. All factors where the RFL determined the club believed they were within the cap at the time and where there was no intent to break the cap. The club signed Morley believing themselves to be within the cap. That was, after all, why the RFL meted out pretty well the minimum penalties available to them and publically said what they did. Compare and contrast Wigan. Will be interesting to see what comes out of the current HMRC/RFL activities, and whether they unearth further examples across the game of clubs believing themselves to be cap-compliant but subsequently transpiring that they were not?

rhinoms wrote:

Imo you never got harris at his peak and do you think the signing was worth it???

Agreed; and no. Does not need you to tell us that - the history books already prove it.

rhinoms wrote:

As for the pooh you find yourselve's in now i don't think it's just down to harris or the grattan landfill. Trusting the "best young english coach" in SL for 3 yrs has played a major part in your demise mate no matter how anyone try's to dress it up.

I've posted my views on that at length on RAB, which you frequent, so I'll not waste further time and space on here repeating myself.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:16 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Because of three factors which together were subsequently determined to represent a breach of the cap. All factors where the RFL determined the club believed they were within the cap at the time and where there was no intent to break the cap. The club signed Morley believing themselves to be within the cap. That was, after all, why the RFL meted out pretty well the minimum penalties available to them and publically said what they did. Compare and contrast Wigan. Will be interesting to see what comes out of the current HMRC/RFL activities, and whether they unearth further examples across the game of clubs believing themselves to be cap-compliant but subsequently transpiring that they were not?


Agreed; and no. Does not need you to tell us that - the history books already prove it.



I've posted my views on that at length on RAB, which you frequent, so I'll not waste further time and space on here repeating myself.

That will be very interesting but do you seriously think there will be back-dated penalties?????
I honestly don't no matter how many wigan,saint's,bulls or hull fans bleat about it!!

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:46 pm  

rhinoms wrote:

That will be very interesting but do you seriously think there will be back-dated penalties?????
I honestly don't no matter how many wigan,saint's,bulls or hull fans bleat about it!!

I suspect the fans of two at least of those clubs will have cause to look a bit closer to home when it all comes out (if it ever does).

But no, I don't. I suspect that both the number and the identity of the clubs implicated - plus the fact that the SC Auditor has already signed off on earlier years - will mean it would be both highly embarrassing and impracticable.

But that still does not mean that it may well transpire that certain clubs DID exceed the cap, possibly significantly even if those now-identified breaches go unpunished. My guess is that any such breaches will be explained away as being "...where the RFL determined the clubs believed they were within the cap at the time and where there was no intent to break the cap." You might just recognise those words...?

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:03 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

At the time all the business was going on, all we ever got told from on here was that IH had no moral argument at all, did we not? And that Hetherington was only doing what was morally right rather than taking an in-his-lap opportunity to get one over Caisley. Now the dust has settled, some of you guys are acknowledging the wider, less partisan picture in the same way that some of us are.

Yes indeed, it is just a pity that the story now - from both sides - is not the story that was portrayed at the time. Would have saved us all a lot of trouble, and for some of us a load of anguish and embarrassment.

Just re-read your post and my reply and perhaps I was a little defensive. I thought you were muddling how GH might've pulled the wool over Iestyn's eyes with the dispute with the Bulls, two separate issues, but clearly you weren't so, sorry.

Iestyn was naive. GH was either very shrewd or took advantage. regardless, we reached a point where to get what he wanted Iestyn signed what he did.

From that point forward my opinion remained consistent. Iestyn was guilty of a clear breach and the Bulls had an arguable case to answer for Inducing it. Leeds had every right to pursue it.

In reality Caisley was completely culpable. Even if he suspected the contract between Leeds and Iestyn wouldn't be upheld he should've had the courtesy to approach us. He stuck two fingers up at us, rolled the dice and lost, or you guys lost. From a man in his profession it was very questionable judgment.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:17 pm  

G1 wrote:

In reality Caisley was completely culpable. Even if he suspected the contract between Leeds and Iestyn wouldn't be upheld he should've had the courtesy to approach us. He stuck two fingers up at us, rolled the dice and lost, or you guys lost. From a man in his profession it was very questionable judgment.

Which is probably the main reason he resigned as chairman and not the reason's he gave for his resignation.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:23 pm  

fanstanningley wrote:

Which is probably the main reason he resigned as chairman and not the reason's he gave for his resignation.

You might suppose that. I could not possibly comment...


(Except I already did in my earlier post, when I suggested he paid for it with his job. I of course should have prefaced that with "....many people believe..." if I am to avoid the need to retain the likes of Gareth's services...)