Re: Chris Caisley : Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:33 pm  

It might be helpful if you can see the article that Chris was responding to?
Here it is from Peter Hood pointing out the woe is me scenario, Harris is mentioned in the article, but I believe it was only a part of the original article I copied, so it well may have been elaborated on in the total piece.
The actual amount in total was later disclosed by Steve Coulby @£629k which included the £550k that Leeds were paid for his transfer.

Quote:
Peter Hood today warned that another season of failure was “simply unthinkable” after the Bulls reported increased losses and a fall in turnover.
Bradford’s accounts for the 2010 financial year revealed losses of £311,403, compared to £78,728 in 2009, while turnover fell from £4.6million to £3.96million.
Yet chairman Hood cited mitigating factors for the slump – as 2010 saw the Bulls pay the second, undisclosed instalment of a three-year compensation package to rivals Leeds over the Iestyn Harris transfer wrangle.
It was also the first year since 2003 that Bradford did not benefit from £334,286 of non-cash deferred income arising from the club’s return to Odsal.
Furthermore, the 2010 campaign marked the Bulls’ lowest crowds of the Super League era as the average home gate dropped to 8,434.
That left Hood to acknowledge the importance of Bradford – who have recruited six new players and will again spend close to or up to the salary cap in 2012 – emerging as a serious force once again.
The average Super League club lost £553,879 in the same period last year, so we did better than most, but our football hasn’t been good enough for too long and we know that

Another really interesting snippet of information on a different subject is how the good old RFL people have changed their mind about going into administration? In 2011 it was a positive vibe from Ralph Rimmer and obviously a good way to alleviate your tax bill? Now of course it is a terrible crime, with dire consequence, that is not merely a hinted sanction by Mr Rimmer!
Read The article and see what you think?

Quote:
This is The First Administration: 2011.
The Wildcats were faced with a winding-up petition from HM Revenue and Customs over an unpaid tax bill of more than £300,000 and their financial difficulties resurfaced recently when Glover revealed the club had been the subject of nine county court judgments.

The Rugby Football League have backed Wakefield Wildcats as efforts to rescue the engage Super League club continue.
RFL chief operating officer Ralph Rimmer feels going into administration can give the club a chance to 'draw a line' under their difficulties.
He believes they could have new owners by the season's start on Saturday week, but hinted the process could damage their hopes of staying in Super League beyond this year.

Doesn't it pay to keep your mouth shut at times:

Can anyone find gaffs from good old Nige????

[Bulliac]

Re: Chris Caisley : Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:39 am  

To be fair, I've always harboured doubts about 'Harrisgate'.

It wasn't just Caisley who made a mistake, let's not forget that Harris' legal team also came up with the belief that he was free to negotiate the deal at the Bulls. Chris Caisley was an expert on company law [which I'd assume included contracts] so it beggars belief that he'd make such a blunder if it was as totally clear cut as it is made out. Another day, another judge, if we'd let it go to the end instead of capitulating and then appealed, who knows what the result might have been? Yes, I do know that the costs of losing the case played a massive part in not going ahead with it, but it did leave an awful lot of 'what ifs'.

Re: Chris Caisley : Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:41 am  

Indeed. It was never explained why we fought the battle for so long and at such cost, only to suddenly fold our hand. The remaining legal issue was certainly very arguable, to say the least.

It also remains a mystery to me why we apparently COMPLETELY folded, AND agreed to pay all Leeds costs, and basically the full claim, and actually paid it, in huge instalments. That would have been a much better time to go into admin, take a points hit, and tell the Rhinos to boil their heads.

And I say that not as a suggestion to pull a fast one, but because I thought then, and think now, that we could never in a million years afford to do what we did AND continue as if we were still wealthy. (the comment about the Leeds money only being counterbalanced by extra Sky money is just patent, arrant, nonsense. It wasn't balanced in the slightest! We paid out, in hard cash, hundreds of thousands of pounds, annually. Which would otherwise have been there to spend on other things. Like, I dunno, tax, or paying suppliers, or wages on time. To suggest it somehow didn't count cos "other income" had gone up really is Orwellian straw-clutching of which the Black Knight would have been proud.

Re: Chris Caisley : Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:56 am  

Harris' agent was also a solicitor and Caisley knew that Harris would be a free agent after 6 more weeks but wouldn't wait!

He put the Bulls in the position that they would have to fight it in out in Court, but at the last minute refused to be called as a main witness in the dispute with Leeds, without him the Bulls case collapsed and the rest we know.
This is what I gleaned a few years back from one of the old Directors no longer with us and also Peter Hood, dredging this up is irrelevant now, we are where we are and can only hope it's third time lucky not three strikes and out!!

[Bullseye]

Re: Chris Caisley : Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:13 pm  

Maybe our finances were such that we had to settle as if we'd lost the case in court we would be insolvent?

Re: Chris Caisley : Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:21 pm  

It wasn't just the money that Harrisgate cost the Bulls but the player exodus( do I get a bonus point for including the word) that it sparked. At this point according to JP's book he was told he could 'f off' if he didn't like IH's terms.

Re: Chris Caisley : Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:36 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

It wasn't just the money that Harrisgate cost the Bulls but the player exodus( do I get a bonus point for including the word) that it sparked. At this point according to JP's book he was told he could 'f off' if he didn't like IH's terms.

Correct.

Don't we have enough current disasters to discuss? except possibly for Myth busting Marios sake and presumably someone he might know with a vested interest? In other news, I'm not entirely sure Chris Joynt was tackled...

Re: Chris Caisley : Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:39 pm  

Duckman wrote:

Correct.

Don't we have enough current disasters to discuss? except possibly for Myth busting Marios sake and presumably someone he might know with a vested interest? In other news, I'm not entirely sure Chris Joynt was tackled...

You'll be saying next that Withers got his fingers to the ball.

Re: Chris Caisley : Fri Nov 18, 2016 1:51 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

You'll be saying next that Withers got his fingers to the ball.

Or that Tansey was offside!

Actually come to think of it, I blame Ganson for all our woes

Re: Chris Caisley : Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:16 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

It wasn't just the money that Harrisgate cost the Bulls but the player exodus( do I get a bonus point for including the word) that it sparked. At this point according to JP's book he was told he could 'f off' if he didn't like IH's terms.

People who know Peacock well will tell that's a load of cobblers. Peacock was already telling people at the end of 2004 he was off to Leeds.