No he didn't. If anyone it was Sheridan with his MOM performances in the earlier rounds who did most to get us to Wembley. Once at Wembley he was also very unlucky not to get the Lance Todd.

Will Harris come into the south stand, after all the abuse chanted at him in recent years? In the yep it says they are going to watch the game from the southstand.

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.

....and if my Aunty had balls etc etc. He signed the contract, therefore all that followed was entirely down to the guy's own moral conscience,and poor advice from his agent and legal team.





Indeed, a superb player, whose abilities stands comparison with any in the game.
Unfortunately, I suspect his legacy will always be tarnished by his contractural disputes, rather than as a trully exceptional rugby player.

Which contract are you referring to? The last playing contract he signed at leeds or the agreement he siged to return to Leeds if he left Union?

rlThis onerl

Last year, at the Hull game (the one where Hull got of to a flyer and we came back to beat them in the 2nd half) he was commentating on Radio Leeds, and he was late back for the start of the 2nd half because of all the autographs he'd been asked to sign on his way back up to the gantry (as reported by the co-commentator that evening who had seen the number of people flocking round Iestyn. Bearing in mind he was still at Bradford at the time, it speaks volumes as to how many fans feel.

That was the first time I had heard him on the radio, and he was absolutely spot on - read pretty much everything happening about 2 minutes before it did. At one point, Hull were 12-18 points clear and in the ascendancy, and chose to kick for goal when given a penalty 20 yards out. Straight away Iestyn said it was a mistake - even if they got the 2 points, they would lose field position and potentially momentum. Minutes later, after the restart, Hull lost the ball, Leeds scored, and the momentum changed for the rest of the match. This happened throughout the match with various aspects of the game - his understanding of all aspects is second to none, and I agree he'll make a fantastic coach in the years to come.

I agree, but seriously the amount of times i call stuff like that, and i'm not especially knowledgable.

It's just common sense, and the stupidity of some coaches and commentators is a constant source of amazement.

Fair point - and perhaps the example I gave wasn't the best example of his reading of the game compared with those things fairly obvious even to the armchair spectator, however his all round knowledge throughout the game was seriously impressive - he got every single call right, and made the other commentator look a fool on a regular basis (granted, wasn't that hard to do...)

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.

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.

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

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.