Rugby league prides itself on its reputation as a family sport, be it with mum, dad and the kids watching the action on matchdays or the close relationship between every strand of the game.

However, like most families that relationship often turns out to be dysfunctional, as the events surrounding the battle that has landed Bradford with a six-figure sum for legal costs and compensation has served to confirm.

Regardless of the legal arguments over the rights and wrongs of the way in which the Bulls signed Leeds's former captain from Welsh rugby union, the sad truth is that rugby league has been diminished by the ugly internecine strife.

There was something slightly unwholesome about the sight of two clubs squabbling like spoiled boys over a toy soldier while the parent body, the Rugby Football League, stood by, lacking either the will or the inclination to intervene.

The case was scheduled to be heard in the High Court early next year, by which time the 'toy' in question – Harris – will have long since passed its usefulness and the two clubs would be left facing a combined legal bill of over £1m.

It is hard not to hold the suspicion that while pursuing compensation for a player for whom they had already received an £850,000 transfer fee, Leeds have cared not a jot for the damage their victory would do to the standing of the man who brought Harris back from the Valleys, Chris Caisley.

Bradford's then-chairman took great delight in unveiling Harris as the Bulls' new signing at a press conference in 2004, when he could not have appeared more pleased had he stuck two fingers up in the direction of Headingley while blowing a raspberry.

Leeds, who had failed to persuade the RFL to block Harris's registration, were so incensed by Caisley's Bulls-baiting antics that they took the 'see you in court' line – and stuck to it until Wednesday evening of this week.

That relations between the two great rivals had sunk to an all-time low in the summer of 2004 was apparent in August of that year when Leeds 'failed' to provide hospitality for Bradford's board of directors for the derby fixture. Instead, Caisley and his fellow directors took their seats in the stand an hour earlier than usual and were supplied with hot drinks from the press room.

Things went from bad to worse when Caisley threatened to sue for defamation after Leeds claimed Bradford had coerced Harris into joining them, a statement which prompted an uncomfortable apology from Rhinos' chief executive Gary Hetherington.

The climate has warmed considerably since then, however, especially since February 2006 when Caisley, who remains Bradford's main shareholder, stepped down after 16 years as chairman.

Caisley's successor, Peter Hood has enjoyed a healthy working relationship with Hetherington, even if his implication in January that Leeds were looking to force Bradford out of business with their punitive claim for £3.2m damages and costs jarred with the Headingley club, and the two boards of directors enjoyed an amicable meal together in Cardiff just last weekend.

The only real winners in this whole sorry episode have been the lawyers. At least for now.

If, as they claim, Bradford and Harris acted in good faith in 2004, huge question marks remain over the quality of the legal advice they received.

Bradford Bulls have this week been made to confront the consequences of their actions: it is going to be interesting to see if Harris's legal advisers and the experts in contract law are prepared to be as accountable.