Quote: martinwildbull "Harris was already in a contract so was not a free agent to be restrained. part of leeds compensation for allowing that contract to be nullified and Harris to go and earn a fortune was that he agreed on returning to RL to give leeds first option. that is why it was not restraint of trade, and really is a no brainer even for a legal layman. What FA has shown in his link to the TNA article is that Hood did a brilliant job to keep Sam, reduce the figure to something sensible and get it on interest free credit over three years or so. Harris did irreperably damage the club not just because he was a spent force but because Peacock and Pryce left, the team went down the pan but the final straw was the whinging Aussie being paid a fortune for sun bathing down under.'"
Peacock and Pryce left in 2005. Orford came in 2010. By simple maths that's 5 years and sums up the problem of trying to present quick summaries of the chain (if one exists) of events.
I couldn't (and still can't) understand why Peter Hood didn't call a meeting of the shareholders, present the case, ask for support in respect of both the Harris and Orford matters, and were it not forthcoming, resign.
Most of the significant shareholders were complicit. Some suggest they were plotting against Hood etc. Had they not supported Hood they would have been under a responsibility to form a board, find funds and take responsibility.
Instead what happened was a game of Rlfans whispers while the club went off a cliff.