Chris Caisley – An open letter in response to Bradford Bulls report

It is almost six years since I stepped down from the Bradford Bulls board of directors and during this time I have persistently declined to comment on the perpetuated myth that the signing of Iestyn Harris and the subsequent settlement with Leeds has been the cause of the catastrophic decline and fall of the club.

The truth is that some of those who have since been charged with the trusteeship of this great club have repeatedly used the signing of Iestyn and events consequent thereon as an excuse for the Bulls’ poor performance, both on and off the field of play, over the past six Super League seasons.

The line repeatedly trotted out has been to the effect that the club has been financially hamstrung by the compensation payment to Leeds. I feel it is therefore important from a personal perspective, for the benefit of the Bulls’ supporters and to do justice to Iestyn, that I put the events in question in their true context.

1: When the club’s board, including Peter Hood and I, signed Iestyn we did so on the basis of the information presented to us at the time. Some time after I had stepped down, Peter made the decision to settle the Leeds claim and he did so on the basis of further information that had by then been presented as to the manner in which Iestyn’s rugby union contract had been terminated. At the time Peter told me that the amount of the settlement was more than covered by the increased money which the Bulls would receive from the new TV broadcast agreement with Sky and that “what the club had not had before it would not miss”.

2: In June 2006 the Bulls received a reported £450,000 for the transfer of Stuart Fielden to Wigan, and further transfers of Lesley Vainikolo, Shontayne Hape and Sam and George Burgess followed, netting significant amounts of cash for the club.

3: In short, the agreed payment to Leeds consequent upon Iestyn’s signing, stated by Peter Hood to be less than the increased TV money, was in any event significantly less than the extraordinary income received by way of compensation payments by the club on the transfer of outgoing players. Further, it needs to be highlighted that Iestyn was a model professional who delivered substantial worth to the club on the field, helped us to win our last Grand Final and helped us to generate additional off-the-field revenue during his time with us.

4: Your article cites the loss of “£334,286 of non-cash deferred income...”, which is correct – i.e. that it is a “paper figure” – and while this impacted on the reported profit/loss for the year, it did not affect the cash available to spend.

5: According to Peter Hood’s published comments, the club has spent up to the salary cap in all but one of the past six seasons. Unfortunately, this has not been met with commensurate on-field success – in fact, quite the opposite, the Bulls having failed to make the play-offs in any of the past three seasons. The consequences of signing Iestyn has little to do with this or with the real causes for the club’s decline or, for that matter, the club being “held back”, as you put it in the heading of your article. The causes are clear for all to see and include, but are not limited to, an extremely poor player recruitment policy, the overpayment of a number of players of inadequate ability, a significant decline in turnover (including sponsorship and hospitality revenues) and a serious departure from the strategy that underpinned our success and what became known as the “Bulls phenomenon” over the first decade of Super League.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to finally set the record straight. I have great affection for the club and sincerely hope that the Bulls can finally move on, look to the future instead of the past and put in place a strategy, the implementation of which will once again bring joy to our supporters and take the Bulls back to the top of Super League.

Yours faithfully, Chris Caisley