The club have made two major mistakes in the last decade:-
1. Signing Iestyn Harris
2. Not keeping Menzies.

3. Appointing Steve McNamara
4. Not sacking Steve McNamara.

1 - without a doubt.
2 - I suspect releasing Morro was, with hindsight, the more serious loss.

I don't think signing Iestyn Harris was a mistake. He was a good player for us IMO.

The circumstances around the Harris signing and the way the old chairman handled the situation was very poor. If we conducted ourselves a bit better and made sure Leeds had first refusal on Harris coming back to play RL then we could probably have signed him without the silly legal wranglings and a spolied relationship between the two clubs.

The Menzies non signing is only a mistake with the benefit of hindsight. Perhaps the board could employ a psychic to prevent things like this happening again?

If Orford stayed and didn't get "homesick", I'm fairly certain he would be classed as a success and worth Menzies not signing. That's the risk with quota players, I'd hope that the club don't have regrets about Menzies.

I don't see the big fuss over Menzies - he played most of last season for you didn't he? No point having him if the rest of the team aren't firing.

Agree with ME on the appointment of McNamara being up there with the signing of Harris (of course it was a mistake - the implications of the latter were far more severe than the legal wranglings - why do you think JP wanted out?). Think Leeds may have made a similar error with McDermott and Lowes (as predicted by many on this board). If Leeds don't put in a good performance against Hudds this week it will be a very disappointing first 10 games for coach McDermott.

At the time, I was very pleased with the signing. With hindsight I can only say it proved a disastrous mistake. I tried to convince myself for ages, but eventually concluded that he was nowhere near worth what he cost (in every way). All the troubles the signing caused the club would have been bad enough had Harris actually performed up to expectations. But surely, by near-universal consent, he performed some considerable way short of expectations? For whatever reason? That was the rueful view of the club too, as expressed to me the highest level.

he might not have been worth the money but he was useful and IIRC a lot on here would have offered him a new deal when his contract was up.

I'm not saying the whole signing wasn't a mistake, it was. It was wrong to sign him when he had other obligations and it was wrong to offer so much for him, upsetting other senior players in the process. Technically he wasn't available to sign but we signed him anyway. IF we had got Leeds consent and offered him a more realistic package, that would have been great. Expectations would have been lower as a supporter and the club would have pulled off the deal of the century had he performed to exceptional levels. As it was performances were useful, not exceptional. The club has paid in more ways than one for the signing.

I don't think getting Harris to play for the Bulls was a mistake, the stupidty surrounding it was.

My disagreement was with whether, as you put it, he was a good player for us.

Had he been on a "more realistic package" and had he not come with the massive baggage that not having "Leeds' consent" brought, then maybe we would then have judged his performances for us as "good"? "Good" is, after all, seen by most fans as being relative to the player's preceived stature, ability and cost? But he was not on a more realistic package, and we did not secure Leeds' consent, and so - relative to his perceived stature, ability and cost -I personally do NOT think he proved a good player for us. Again, for whatever reasons (which in fairness may have included other players not responding to him and the external pressures he was under) in many games he disappointed, surely? And in those games where he performed well - and there was a run when he was regularly picking up MOM - that was after all only the level of expectation we had anyway?

I would not have re-signed him - I think by then he was attracting too much of the blame that should have been laid first at Caisley's door, and had not won the fans over. I do not think it would have been a popular re-signing at the time, tbh. But that is my opinion. And its anyway all "might have beens", and we could hardly have been much worse than we became after he went?

Harris certainly wasn't the player he was when he went to Union and we should've stayed well clear. Signing him cost us the signatures of Pryce and Peacock on new contracts and rather a lot in ££££ in legal costs.

At the time Pryce was getting some flak for being a bit of a flat track bully but in hindsight that was perhaps a bit unfair. Harris may be less of a volatile character than Pryce but you could argue that having Harris in the dressing room caused more upset than Leon ever did.

I'd say signing Harris was the biggest mistake the club made since 1964 beating balls up like letting Peter Fox go in 85, appointing Barry Seabourne, signing Terry Holmes and appointing Ron Willey in 89 and those were all large cock ups.

agree, there was a high expectation. It was fair to expect big things from him too; we had been showing off about capturing Harris and the club put him on a big pedestal. Interesting point about the players not responding to him. Similar to Edwards perhaps only not as disastrous?



very true. Harris had moved to playing hooker quite a lot too at the time and IIRC Henderson left that year too leaving us a requirement to be met? A one year option was rumoured but he obviously didn't take it.

I thought Harris played well for us. I don't think he warranted the reported contract though, which as has already been pointed out, was to cost us Peacock and possibly Pryce. The whole situation around his signing was to cost us very dear, so I would regard the deal as overall the worst I can remember. To go back to my first sentence though, Iestyn put in the effort and whilst not being the player he had been before he moved to union, I won't crib him for what he did on the field.