Peter Hood wrote:
Those repayments to Leeds over the Harris transfer that are mentioned amounted to £580,000. When you factor in solicitor and court costs that figure increases significantly to the £700,000 barrier.
At the time of the Harris incident the board of directors were confident that these cost were affordable and that we as a club were able to budget going forward without this settlement with Leeds having any great impact on the business.
How ludicrous. Do you think we are stupid? If the figure was 700k (I's guess with two sets of legal costs, much more) how can anyone who wasn't innumerate possibly think paying it "wouldn't have any great impact on the business"?
That statement could only be true if the club was making that much money, it had a surplus that was not that far different from 700k, but would have to make up a portion of it. But we weren't.
Peter Hood wrote:
This was proved wrong.
Perhaps the finger should be pointed in the direction of a local specialist sports solicitor, who assured the Bradford Bulls board that the deal to sign Harris from Cardiff was watertight.
First let me clarify that signing Harris was for me the most baffling thing ever, and directly led to the collapse of a great team and club. Having said that, "Watertight" the advice clearly wasn't, but it wasn't ever "proved wrong". The case dragged on for years, and was heading for a final hearing. Then, we all of a sudden capitulated. There was no final hearing. No decision was made. The advice took a good kicking on the preliminary issue, but was never tested at a trial.
The remaining legal argument was clear, and was arguable. Whether it would have won or not we will now never know. But, if we had that much money that sheling out 700k wouldn't "have any great impact on the business", then having gone so far, why pay up in full with costs, rather than finish the game and see what the judge decided? It couldn't have got any worse, but for a few grand in trial costs, and what if we had won?
