: Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:14 pm  

He signed for us when we were rubbish, he helped make us real contenders again and entertained us all, then he went to play Union and came back to a different club. So what. Did we even want him? No.
The contract dispute stuff all seemed a bit laboured to me, I'm only really interested in what players do on the pitch. Harris was a great player for us, a great captain and he did all that without dividing the dressing room or being a knob.
I'm glad to see him back on Sky and hope they use him more often. He knows the game inside out.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:30 pm  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

Did we even want him? No.

Really, so what was all that court case thingy about then?

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:33 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Really, so what was all that court case thingy about then?

Getting the compensation for a transfer of his services

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:38 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

Getting the compensation for a transfer of his services

That must have been some pretty sound legal advice Leeds received at the outset then.

No risk involved if they'd lost the case.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:42 pm  

Tony Soprano wrote:

I don't see why he wont, I'm sure he expected to get some banter playing for our local rivals and took it all with a pinch of salt but on friday he is just a Leeds legend and has no association with Bradford.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:50 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Really, so what was all that court case thingy about then?

You have me there. What was the court case all about?

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:15 pm  

Dave Heron's Moustache wrote:

You have me there. What was the court case all about?

Justice?

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:28 pm  

G1 wrote: I see. The agreement to return to Leeds. OK, lets examine that shall we? The judge held it WAS a restraint of trade, albeit a legal one. So Iestyn breached his contract for which we were compensated. So what's your problem? If you're going to get all pious on behalf of our club you should ask Karl Pratt and Andy Hay how honourable we can be when it comes to contracts being honoured. I agree he had poor advice from his legal advisers in taking the preliminary issue on restraint of trade. As someone who knows pointed out earlier he didn't listen to or take advice when signing his final Leeds playing contract. He was given good advice when told to settle the claim, btw! Finally, you've brought morals into the equation which you shouldn't really. Imagine this hypothetical scenario. GH persuades Iestyn not to walk away at the end of his 1st contract. They shake hands on an agreement that iestyn will sign another deal but he will let him leave a year later. That way Leeds can get a transfer fee. Both are happy to do it. When it comes to the crunch GH reneges and starts making demands. nearly scuppers the deal. So Iestyn is reluctantly co-orced into signing an agreement to return to Leeds which was never what was agreed when Iestyn graciously agreed to stay 1 more year before chasing his dreams. Now, who has the moral high ground? BTW, this is not story time. Much of these facts were accepted by the judge in the preliminary issue trial you have linked to a report of. So, for those of you silly enough to be holding some sort of grudge against our former captain and one of our greatest players I reckon you need to get a grip. Not quite as I recall it Harris signed a 4 year contract with Rhinos in December 1999 and less than 18 months later was attempting to weasal his way out of it. Given his previous track record with Warrington, GH as Chief Exec, with advice from Chris Ross at Cobbetts , took the neccesary steps to make the best of a bad situation. And to be honest, both of them played a blinder. Not too sure how a hypothetical case would pan out in court though. It is also interesting to note as far as moral high ground........it all ended in tears at Cardiff as well. I'm beginning to detect a pattern with Mr Harris. Take your pick....Harries is either one of the most duplicitous people you are likely to meet, or has had extraordinary poor advice throughout his career. I am firmly in the former camp. I acknowledge his abilities as a player, and what he may bring in a coaching role to the game in the future. His articulate appearances on Sky are testiment to his RL knowledge. Any bets on the chances of a Sky contract..... or will he be getting paid cash in hand?

G1 wrote: I see. The agreement to return to Leeds. OK, lets examine that shall we? The judge held it WAS a restraint of trade, albeit a legal one. So Iestyn breached his contract for which we were compensated. So what's your problem? If you're going to get all pious on behalf of our club you should ask Karl Pratt and Andy Hay how honourable we can be when it comes to contracts being honoured. I agree he had poor advice from his legal advisers in taking the preliminary issue on restraint of trade. As someone who knows pointed out earlier he didn't listen to or take advice when signing his final Leeds playing contract. He was given good advice when told to settle the claim, btw! Finally, you've brought morals into the equation which you shouldn't really. Imagine this hypothetical scenario. GH persuades Iestyn not to walk away at the end of his 1st contract. They shake hands on an agreement that iestyn will sign another deal but he will let him leave a year later. That way Leeds can get a transfer fee. Both are happy to do it. When it comes to the crunch GH reneges and starts making demands. nearly scuppers the deal. So Iestyn is reluctantly co-orced into signing an agreement to return to Leeds which was never what was agreed when Iestyn graciously agreed to stay 1 more year before chasing his dreams. Now, who has the moral high ground? BTW, this is not story time. Much of these facts were accepted by the judge in the preliminary issue trial you have linked to a report of. So, for those of you silly enough to be holding some sort of grudge against our former captain and one of our greatest players I reckon you need to get a grip. Not quite as I recall it Harris signed a 4 year contract with Rhinos in December 1999 and less than 18 months later was attempting to weasal his way out of it. Given his previous track record with Warrington, GH as Chief Exec, with advice from Chris Ross at Cobbetts , took the neccesary steps to make the best of a bad situation. And to be honest, both of them played a blinder. Not too sure how a hypothetical case would pan out in court though. It is also interesting to note as far as moral high ground........it all ended in tears at Cardiff as well. I'm beginning to detect a pattern with Mr Harris. Take your pick....Harries is either one of the most duplicitous people you are likely to meet, or has had extraordinary poor advice throughout his career. I am firmly in the former camp. I acknowledge his abilities as a player, and what he may bring in a coaching role to the game in the future. His articulate appearances on Sky are testiment to his RL knowledge. Any bets on the chances of a Sky contract..... or will he be getting paid cash in hand?

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:49 pm  

BillyRhino wrote:

I'm beginning to detect a pattern with Mr Harris.

At least he saw out his last SL contract having learned from the errors of his previous ways.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:56 pm  

BillyRhino wrote: Not quite as I recall it Read paragraphs 15, 17 and 45 of that judgment and, accepting as you have that Harris was badly advised, tell me how that is not consistent with the scenario I described above?

BillyRhino wrote: Not quite as I recall it Read paragraphs 15, 17 and 45 of that judgment and, accepting as you have that Harris was badly advised, tell me how that is not consistent with the scenario I described above?