See my second post. 95% of these types of civil cases start off with both sides thinking they will win.

Then usually after a preliminary hearing or a court direction one side realises their arguement has just being weakened.

Consequently you then get the two sides messing around in a game of Brinksmanship to see who blinks first. The side who thinks they have the weakest case then try to get out of it as quickly as they can. Bradford messed around far too long and then realised they were going to get shafted so got out ASAP. Unlike the GIants legal team and management who right royally f****** up in the mason case.

They only settled because they knew they were going to lose the legal case. They lost the preliminary hearing in court and then it was pretty certain they would lose the whole legal case Unfortunately it took them three years to realise they were going to lose and that Leeds were not going to blink first.

Explain your use of "once". It suggests a temporal connection between the preliminary issue and the decision to settle. There wasn't one, the settlement came years later.

Explain why, if the "Bulls realised they had no defence", the board that was in place at that earlier date fought on. Explain how you overlooked that the board which decided to settle was actually a different board, and a long time down the track.



I [ithink[/i I understand what you meant to say, although the thought of a judge apologising for his decision did make me smile. You are very confused. Leeds had an option to re-employ Harris. That WAS a restraint of trade. But, the court held being a restraint of trade didn't make the option void, in the rather unique circumstances of the Harris case.

In fact the main thrust of the Bulls' case can be summarised as "Any breach by Harris would not concern us, as we didn't induce him to breach any contractual obligation he may have (none being admitted)". Or, "Nowt to do with us, guv".

The prelim issue was just a subtext, although a significant subtext since if it had gone the other way that would have ended the case in the Bulls and Harris's favour. They were clearly advised that it was worth taking this preliminary issue to hearing, on the basis that it presented a quicker and cheaper way, if they were found right, of quickly ending the litigation. No doubt the decision must have come as a blow. But as it was decided in Leeds' favour that just meant the MAIN case would have to trundle on. And so it trundled, until a completely different board for whatever reasons basically capitulated. But the Court never found against the Bulls on the main issues, and so we'll never know what the decision would have been.

Thanks for this. I never knew it worked like that.

Oh - just one thing. If that's how it works, then why didn't the then board try to get out of it as quickly as they could?

Or, indeed, as it happens, ever?




That really doesn't sound a very likely scenario, now does it? "Took them 3 years to realise ..." - even you must register that that's a dumb proposition; and that's even ignoring that the people doing the alleged realising weren't actually the same ones! Did they do a long-term mind meld, or something, you think?

We can all ascribe whatever speculative reasons we like for why they settled, because we will never know. Your speculation is just that. I could speculate that it had been made crystal to the Bulls that if it went to trial and they lost, then the club would be liquidated. Whereas if they backed down and settled then (a) huge saving on legal costs (b) discount on compo (c) payment by instalments over a number of years, instead of a Statutory Demand. I could speculate that therefore rather than risk the whole existence of the club on a winner-takes-all gamble the new board decided to bite the bullet and do the deal. I don't profess to know (the circumstances of the settlement were all subject to strict confidentiality clauses) but I would bet a lot of money that my pure speculation is one helluva lot nearer the mark than your speculation.

FA in long winded point i cannot be bothered to read.

I am wrong. Bradford won the case. They suffered no financial penalty. Bradford have no financial problems as a result of the Harris case.

In anteater world it is alright because he argues semantic points on a discussion board.

Meanwhile on planet earth the Bradford Bulls are up the creek and it really started off with the Harris case.

Just a point, whilst it may sound dumb for them to take 3 years to come to that conclusion, this is the board that many a Bradford fan have said lacked sense.

I'll concede the point it's unlikely, but in this case not impossible.

I work in a different world to the law, but I do hear some stories from my world were people are bang to rights yet appeal and appeal knowing they are in the wrong and despite judgements increasing any penalty laid down. But still they appeal and con themselves that they are in the right.

To anyone like yourself who actually wants to talk about the matter in hand, I have always said that I found it very hard to see how the Bulls could possibly be found to have induced the breach. Harris was represented by an agent and lawyers. It was at least as much in his interests to be sure he was free to do what he was proposing to do before he did it, and so it's not like he was some naive unrepresented youngster, seduced by the bright lights of Bradford and conned into ting on his old club. The Bulls would have had to be found to have induced the breach of a contract that they were told by Harris's advisers he either did not have or was definitely not bound by. The Bulls either relied on Harris's assertions, or even formed their own independent view of it, but where in all that is there "inducement" in the strict sense needed in a breach of contract allegation? So from my viewpoint I felt the Bulls looked to have a strong case and I know of nothing that happened to change that.

I am done with DG given he's crying, and I am not a bully; though maybe you could have a word in your fellow moderator's ear and point out he's starting to behave strangely again. I would, but he wouldn't take it from me.

Aardvark in I know better than the specialist lawyers and the judge in a court case where i have no real knowledge ofall the evidence shocker. Then you wonder why i ignore half the shiite you write.

If only the Bulls board had you as their legal advisor Bradford would have won the case, it would be Leeds who would be bankrupt and the Bulls who would be lording it all up.


You cannot make it up except in Aardvark world. Yopu should give up law and become a Sci Fi writer you could take over the role of Tery Pratchett. Just swap Discworld for Anteater world.

Rubbish. But I suspect you know that anyway.

The preliminary hearing was simply to determine whether or not a case could be brought against the Bulls at all. You have no idea what defence might or might not have been given in court because the Bulls ultimately chose not to take that route. The fact that it took them three years to decide on that course of action, during which time they spent considerable sums of money, strongly suggests that they did not immediately feel that they had no defence following the preliminary hearing.

Neither do you know what the defence was .

The point i made was about brinksmanship about who blinked first. At the end when it came to who thought they could win the Bulls or their legal team said, " we need to cut our losses we wont win". Hence they gave in and were stuck with damages and leagl fees. I would guess that if they had fought on that the legal fees could have doubled with the amount learned counsel charge for a hearing that might have lasted a few days.

That is why they gave in to cut their losses. The fact is that either their legal advice was poor or they were so desparate to play poker with the case that it dragged on for years and cost a lot more than it should have done.

If they had said to Leeds at the begining we are sorry can we give you £500k and leave it that it would probably have been accepted.

It was the same with the GIants and the Mason case. They were absolutely in the wrong on the basis of everything i read and were suitably punished in the tribunal. But they were so belligerent or had crap legal advice they went all the way and lost.
And i said at the time i was glad the Giants lost the case and they deserved to lose every penny it cost them.

I dont know how much it cost the Bulls in the end but it was a lot more than that. Maybe aardvark can tell us.

Indeed. because - and here's the important part so I'll type slowly - [iit was never tested in court.[/i

A big part of that delay is that another substantive point in the amount leeds could claim from Bradford was being heard in another case and a stay was put on the Bradford one.

So it seems another party were apparently 'as dumb' as Bradford and took the case all the way to the high court.

What people also seem to forget is the level of compensation. Even had Bradford lost the case, only an idiot would assume that Leeds would have been given the full amount claimed, and Leeds did in fact settle for a lower amount.

So whilst those looking to critics Bradford for this, it actually saved them money to fight the case than simply capitulate to leeds demands

Indeed. because - and here's the important part so I'll type slowly P A R T O F I T W A S T E S T E D I N C O U R T.

That is why they had a preliminary hearing to test the validity of one each parties key points on whether it was or not a restraint of trade. One side had the judge agree with them the other one did not hence some of it WAS heard in court.

assuming that the five learned counsel involved in the case were and their instructing solicitors were doing it all free of charge

I did. The point stands. What people thought the outcome would be has no bearing on whether a judgement was made. No judgement was made.

I had no point to make beyond that.

No. No it wasn't.

The preliminary hearing was to determine whether there was anything to defend. This kind of legal manoeuvring happens all the time.

And I'll leave it there. Your dislike of all things Bradford is blinding you. Or your ignorance is too profound to be shifted. Either way I have better things to do than be dragged down and beaten by experience.

Well it's nice to see we are all friends again.

Maybe a couple of matches can distract us.

AS one side said there was nothing to defend re restarint of trade and the other side said there was.

The outcome was that the JUDGE said



If the judge says he made JUDGEMENT about legal arguments between the sides then it was a partial judgement on the issues in the case. This would therefore have undermined one plank of the Bulls case as they were ruled against. If it was not part of their case they would not have argued it

And I'll leave it there. Your dislike of all things legitimately argued is blinding you. Or your ignorance is too profound to be shifted. Either way I have better things to do than be dragged down and beaten by experience.

More rumours on Facebook that Scruton and perhaps Foster ready to jump ship to Wakey

Interesting article: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... e/?ref=rss Particularly Quote Mentions of a “mystery consortium” should be treated with scepticism. So too those who like to announce their every move in the public eye. '" More than meets the eye or deliberate provocation?

Interesting article: www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... e/?ref=rss Particularly Quote Mentions of a “mystery consortium” should be treated with scepticism. So too those who like to announce their every move in the public eye. '" More than meets the eye or deliberate provocation?

DG - it's not too long, and I've thrown in some pictures to keep your concentration up. So stick with it, you can do it if you concentrate.



Hmmm...

Durham Giant in I know better than the specialist lawyers shocker




Durham Giant in Stevo style "imaginary conversation" shocker




So, you comment at length about a case where YOU have no real knowledge of the evidence - whilst criticising other people who you presume have no real knowledge of the evidence for doing just what you are. Whoosh!




Yes, I sit awake at night, reading back every post I ever made, cross-checking whether Durham Giant did or didn't reply to it, and if any post appears to have been ignored by Durham Giant, I spend endless hours wondering why. No, really. Please don't ignore any more of my posts, I do fret so.


It doesn't matter who acted for the Bulls, all these things might have come to pass had the case gone to a full hearing. We will obviously never know.


He may not, but I do, I read it. You could have done the same had you attended the court office and asked. Although the rules as to who can see what pleadings are a bit stricter these days.




No, they did not give in. They came to a SETTLEMENT with Leeds. Look up the meaning of the word if you are unclear. "Giving in" would be withdrawing their Defence and letting the court assess damages and costs. Durham Giant in deliberate misrepresentation shocker.




Oh, I see - so it is OK for Durham Giant to spout forth, even if it is a pure "guess". But again, you miss the point. It is also perfectly possible that if they had fought on they would have won, and not had to pay anything at all. That much is 100% indisputable.

No, that is not why they settled. I explained the reasons why they settled.


Do you feel better for having these schoolboy pops? They are cringeworthy for an adult to make. I tell you this as a mate, you're just making a fool of yourself with it, and if it is meant to have some effect on me, it makes me laugh.

You'd have been better actually responding to what I said. I of course note that you don't, and of course that's because you can't. Sadly no amount of bluster and veering off topic to your normal ad hominem detracts from the sound thrashing your "arguments" have had and not just from me.

Scruton confirmed to Wakefield.

very dark days at the bulls. Only last week he said he did not want to go anywhere.

obviously taken out of his hands and the administrator is now very much playing hardball.

Things are going to get alot worse before they get better

Why do you assume it'll get better?

You crazy optimist, you.

Not looking forward to a trip to Odsal !