: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:11 pm  

G1 wrote:

Should've made an effort to attend the dinner if you were that bothered.

Nice one

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:16 pm  

fiddestherhino wrote:

Nice one

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:12 pm  

G1 wrote: 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: 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. The scenario you painted may well have been how it played out in Harris's mind. However, I would suggest that Mr Justice Grey called it correctly. I think that Paragraphs 13,14,15,16 and 17, show quite comprehensively that Harris's claims he knew nothing about Clause 5,.... that nary a word was mentioned by the WRU,... His agent,... his solicitor, or in his several discussions with GH, were rightly dismissed by Justice Grey. I thought Justice Grey was more than generous, in his explanation that these discrepancies were caused by Harris having a limited ability to understand Contracts. Contract Law is one thing, understanding basic spoken English is something else. His subsequent television appearances would suggest he's not as thick as he chose to portray himself in Court. Paragraph 45 confirms it was immaterial whether he understood the Terms of his Contract, as his Agent and Solicitor certainly did. I personally think that Harris intended to maximise his career earnings, and may have thought his undoubted on field ability would let him disregard any Contracts which he had signed. It's thinking like that which keeps lawyers in business . Apparently, he could still face further action

G1 wrote: 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: 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. The scenario you painted may well have been how it played out in Harris's mind. However, I would suggest that Mr Justice Grey called it correctly. I think that Paragraphs 13,14,15,16 and 17, show quite comprehensively that Harris's claims he knew nothing about Clause 5,.... that nary a word was mentioned by the WRU,... His agent,... his solicitor, or in his several discussions with GH, were rightly dismissed by Justice Grey. I thought Justice Grey was more than generous, in his explanation that these discrepancies were caused by Harris having a limited ability to understand Contracts. Contract Law is one thing, understanding basic spoken English is something else. His subsequent television appearances would suggest he's not as thick as he chose to portray himself in Court. Paragraph 45 confirms it was immaterial whether he understood the Terms of his Contract, as his Agent and Solicitor certainly did. I personally think that Harris intended to maximise his career earnings, and may have thought his undoubted on field ability would let him disregard any Contracts which he had signed. It's thinking like that which keeps lawyers in business . Apparently, he could still face further action

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:17 pm  

The best non-signing ever?

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:36 pm  

BillyRhino wrote: Apparently, he could still face further action Aside from being garbage, that link is very old, unless we have re-signed Gareth Ellis.

BillyRhino wrote: Apparently, he could still face further action Aside from being garbage, that link is very old, unless we have re-signed Gareth Ellis.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:44 pm  

Harris probably did want to maximise his earnings but at the end of the day we came off best. The player that left rugby league wasn't the same player that came back. He chose Bradford and in doing so he probably did us a favour. We were compensated for it. Win, win situation for Leeds. Lets move on and on Friday give him the plaudits he deserves for helping to end our cup drought.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:47 pm  

From conversation with IH's previous advisor, he deliberately signed the last deal with Leeds to guarantee us a transfer fee, against Tom's advice.

He then had his hand forced up his back by GH with the last minute price hike and "contract termination document". None of this was part of the original discussions, so IH had a right to be tee'd off.

With regard to the court case, it was always a case of "we could afford to lose it, but Bradford couldn't", so really it was a game of poker. It was also a great opportunity for GH to embarass CC, so it was just too good a chance for him to turn down.

IH should be remembered for his exploits on the field at Leeds, as so few people know the real details behind his exit that they really are not qualified to comment on it. He should receive the applause and reception worthy of a great player for Leeds.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:52 pm  

he should take an open university degree as a lawyer because he has been really unlucky to get bad advice when at warrington,leeds and cardiff.
either that or he was stupid enough to use the same one three times.

as a player, he was class, wonderful.
as a person, if he said it was sunny i would look out of the window

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:31 pm  

batleyrhino wrote:

From conversation with IH's previous advisor, he deliberately signed the last deal with Leeds to guarantee us a transfer fee, against Tom's advice.

He then had his hand forced up his back by GH with the last minute price hike and "contract termination document". None of this was part of the original discussions, so IH had a right to be tee'd off.

With regard to the court case, it was always a case of "we could afford to lose it, but Bradford couldn't", so really it was a game of poker. It was also a great opportunity for GH to embarass CC, so it was just too good a chance for him to turn down.

IH should be remembered for his exploits on the field at Leeds, as so few people know the real details behind his exit that they really are not qualified to comment on it. He should receive the applause and reception worthy of a great player for Leeds.

: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:35 pm  

batleyrhino wrote: From conversation with IH's previous advisor, he deliberately signed the last deal with Leeds to guarantee us a transfer fee, against Tom's advice. He then had his hand forced up his back by GH with the last minute price hike and "contract termination document". None of this was part of the original discussions, so IH had a right to be tee'd off. With regard to the court case, it was always a case of "we could afford to lose it, but Bradford couldn't", so really it was a game of poker. It was also a great opportunity for GH to embarass CC, so it was just too good a chance for him to turn down. IH should be remembered for his exploits on the field at Leeds, as so few people know the real details behind his exit that they really are not qualified to comment on it. He should receive the applause and reception worthy of a great player for Leeds. 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! At least GI had the curtesey to dress his fantasy up as a hypothesis. This is simply more of the same regurgitated nonsense. With the greatest respect Batley for a factual summary on Iestyn Harris, Mr Justice Grey's judgment is not that hard to understand.

batleyrhino wrote: From conversation with IH's previous advisor, he deliberately signed the last deal with Leeds to guarantee us a transfer fee, against Tom's advice. He then had his hand forced up his back by GH with the last minute price hike and "contract termination document". None of this was part of the original discussions, so IH had a right to be tee'd off. With regard to the court case, it was always a case of "we could afford to lose it, but Bradford couldn't", so really it was a game of poker. It was also a great opportunity for GH to embarass CC, so it was just too good a chance for him to turn down. IH should be remembered for his exploits on the field at Leeds, as so few people know the real details behind his exit that they really are not qualified to comment on it. He should receive the applause and reception worthy of a great player for Leeds. 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! At least GI had the curtesey to dress his fantasy up as a hypothesis. This is simply more of the same regurgitated nonsense. With the greatest respect Batley for a factual summary on Iestyn Harris, Mr Justice Grey's judgment is not that hard to understand.