Which one had 18 months after signing his contract to consider whether or not he actually wanted to fulfill it, while his future employers expended time and legal costs to try to get him over here?

Relevance?

The impression I had with Eastwood was that he was contracturally obligated to come to Leeds despite having changed his mind on the move after his stint with Canterbury.

I recall a comment he made saying something along the lines of 'I suppose I'll have to go' and while that may well have been tailored to an Australian audience it didn't sound all that promising.

A good representation for the club who has won 3 Super League rings, hub cap and World Club Challenge and scored many tries, who has been offered a chance to change his life down under and help settle down with his family back home

or

A lad who didnt tell the club about a conviction he had, told the aussie press he was coming for the money and then 7 months in cry's his dummy out as hes missing home

Again, relevance to your obligation to fufill a Legal Contract?

What proof do you have Donald had a contract which didnt have a get out clause or the option to withdraw after a certain period of time after signing?

Bluey'll have you. Can't talk about his mate like that.

Contracts are negotiable.

Had Eastwood manned up and approached Leeds during 2009 while he was still at the Bulldogs, I'm pretty sure the parties could have come to a settlement that would have avoided all the unnecessary whining in the media he's indulged in since.

Much different from the way Donald has handled his position, wouldn't you say?

Lovely but it's not that simple is it.

Donald has been at the club 5 years, he is retiring to go home with his wife and kids so they can start school "at home" and he can start a new career outside of rugby to provide for the future.

Eastwood liked the look of the £ on the contract he signed, then before he even got here showed regret, then asked to be released from a 3 year deal after playing 10? games to go play for another RL club.

Again if you want to know my views on Eastwood asking to be released then go have a look at that thread but if you think the two cases are similar then I worry for you young William.

Ah so that would put you firmly in this camp then?....

[iAnd please don't mention lucrative contracts either.....not worth the paper they're written on , according to the F@@kwit Massive.....it's the number of tries you've scored whilst hoovering up all that dosh from the aforesaid contracts that is the benchmark! Score lots, and orft you depart, before Contract's end, with rose petals being strewn up the Quantos boarding steps.

Apparently[/i

Remind us again what the conviction was for....and yes, it would make sense to move halfway around the World for the money don't ya think?

I really don't understand the anti-Donald movement on here.

I can relate to the anti-Eastwood'ers on a number of levels, and I may even be one......

but Donald........

Contracts are indeed negotiable, but for the purpose of the debate let us assume it was a fairly standard pro forma, with a get out close for all parties that it would be terminated, say in the event of a serious injury.

What I suspect is not negotiable, is your legal obligation to fulfill the aforesaid contract, after you have added your signature to it, and that despite the various red herrings being trawled, (number of games/tries scored etc etc) is what we are discussing.

I'd liken their 'movement' to my bowel movements.

But that would be un-fair.

As my bowel movements have sustenance behind them.