In which case, it's a poor discussion as I don't recall anyone stating that signed contracts can't be legally enforced?

Given this seems to be the main crux of whatever point it is you're trying to prove, I take it your assertion is that Leeds threatened legal action in order to get Eastwood into the country in the first place despite the fact he had already expressed reservations about whether he wanted to be here?

Correct.

I can only think of 2 recent cases where an antipodean precedent has been set for for agreeing/signing a contract and not fulfilling it.

Have I missed any?

Can you be said to fail to honour a contract if it's not started yet...?

mark campbell, mark massa & vince fawcett

if a sandwich 2006 & 2010 not the best bread for different reasons but quality filling inbetween

I'm sure all our fans, regardless of opinion of SD's overall playing ability, would not argue about his record or his service to the club over the 5 years he's been here. I think the 'Donald bashing' is just a backlash against the perceived harshness Eastwood has received on these boards since his decision to go home at the end of the season.

The point should have been blindingly obvious to such an opinionated chap like yourself. They both signed legally binding contracts and both were seeking not to fulfill them. Their reasons, and the assorted excuses offered up by some on here have no bearing whatsover on that particular point!

Assertion? Feel free to point out in any of my posts anything remotely close to what you are claiming.

Might I also suggest, that whilst your strawman fallacy approach is several levels higher in thought than what has been offered up over the past couple of days, it would be better served over on Sin Bin?

Perhaps G1 could shine some light. Hypothetically of course.

You are living in a different world if you think length and quality of service are not contributing factors when decisions are made between an employer and employee.

Who exactly has upset you with differing views on Donald & Eastwood? because I know what my thoughts were on Eastwood and what I posted.

Indeed. A reasonable employer will look to the welfare of his players, and I can see why the devious approach by Eastwood, does not stack up well against Donalds, and in all truth I have absolutely no problems with Scott Donald's reasoning or desire to return home.

I have also no axe to grind regarding Eastwood either, other than this is precisely the kind of talent that GH should be signing with an eye to our future, and to loose his services is a pain in the butt.

The over the top platitudes by the gormless few were there to be shot down, although I reckon it's run its course now.

Next week, I expect Numpties R Us to be offering up similar opportunities!

Fair enough but I didn't see anything OTT myself.

The contract starts when there is an offer, acceptance and consideration. In this particular instance there will be no consideration from either party as Donald will not be offering his playing services and Leeds will not be paying him.

Thus, there is no contract. It has been rendered void.

Making the situation both legally and morally a whole different ball game to the Eastwood situation.

HTH.

Hummm - there was a former poster of these boards (who swore never to return) who used to refer to Donald as a chancer too.