: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:28 pm  

fanstanningley wrote:

Which is probably the main reason he resigned as chairman and not the reason's he gave for his resignation.

he f*cked up.

It still leaves a slight sour taste in the mouth that many people still consider leeds the bad guys in all that, trying to ''de-stabalise the bulls''.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:47 am  

Adeybull wrote:

I never got to the bottom of just how much of IH's contract was funded by external image rights - and so was likely from funding not necessarily available to pay more to Peacock.

Now thats the bit that makes me chuckle, the thought that Iestyn had the faintest idea what "image rights" were all about.

Have I ever told you the story about the Iestyn and the bath that was advertised in the Leeds matchday programme ?

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:41 am  

BillyRhino wrote:

You know, if Adolph Hitler had played a few seasons for us, and later claimed his brain fart in 1939 was the result of bad advice, I'm pretty sure there would be a few numpties on here loudly proclaiming his abilities at stand off!

Rubbish. everyone knows Hitler was much better at Fullback

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:11 am  

What I didn't agree with at the time was that IMO Leeds did not want Iestyn to come back. If he had it would have disrupteda team that was gelling with the emergenve of Burrow, McGuire and Sinfield. (Remember at the time Sinfield regularly played SO). His return would hasve disrupted the salary cap and probably meant that Leeds would have to release youngsters at the time. Before Iestyn went to the Bulls there was a lot of debate about whether Leeds should sign him and IIRC the majority didn't want him to re-sign. That is why i felt at the time that GH should let it go.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:46 am  

finglas wrote:

What I didn't agree with at the time was that IMO Leeds did not want Iestyn to come back.

More rubbish spread by people on here at the time who knew nothing.

I said it at the time, and I will maintain it. I personally in the position I was in at a company, was approached and had meetings with GH on the subject of sponsoring Harris on his return.

Of course that could have been some elaborate bluff in order to cover themselves should a court case arise, but I doubt it.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 8:50 am  

DISA wrote:

I said it at the time, and I will maintain it. I personally in the position I was in at a company, was approached and had meetings with GH on the subject of sponsoring Harris on his return.

Was that for image rights?

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:03 am  

DISA wrote:

More rubbish spread by people on here at the time who knew nothing.

I said it at the time, and I will maintain it. I personally in the position I was in at a company, was approached and had meetings with GH on the subject of sponsoring Harris on his return.

Of course that could have been some elaborate bluff in order to cover themselves should a court case arise, but I doubt it.

I stand by the statement that IMO Leeds did not want IH back at the time. Their agreement with IH meant that they were committed to taking him back and that is probably why they were approaching third parties to offload some of the cost if required. Just because they were preparing for his potential return based on an agreement signed three years earlier does not mean that they would have considered that option if there had been no agreement in place.

You may want to think about what I said in future rather than taking a bit of info you had and jumping to conclusions about the background to that info.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:04 am  

If there had been an internet in the 1980's I shudder to think what the discussion regarding Dean "Judas" Bell would have been like.

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:26 am  

DISA wrote:

More rubbish spread by people on here at the time who knew nothing.

I said it at the time, and I will maintain it. I personally in the position I was in at a company, was approached and had meetings with GH on the subject of sponsoring Harris on his return.

Of course that could have been some elaborate bluff in order to cover themselves should a court case arise, but I doubt it.

Who approached you, Phil Daly?

: Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:30 am  

G1 wrote:

Who approached you, Phil Daly?