Never in a million years!

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.

No, it wasn't that.

a summary from 5RB.com(clause 5 - play for leeds again) [/iwas subject to the restraint of trade doctrine; L was wrong to dispute this on the footing that cl 5 merely allowed L to require H to resume his employment if he left C early; but in its overall context cl 5 was reasonable in the public interest, and the interests of both L and H.

with any case the judge has to go through all the arguments and come to a judgement on their merits. Leeds put forward the employment resumption argument that it was not a restraint of trade, the judge said it was. He then looked at the entire context of the agreement itself and said that in these circumstances it was not a restraint, in fact Harris had benefited from it. so overall, the net effect, call it what you want, not a restraint of trade. Otherwise we would have won the case, Leeds would have paid our expenses, we wouldnt have sold Sam Hood would have a knighthood.

So I apologise for calling you a pedant, sorry sophist, I should have said that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

I'm sure Ferocious Aardvark has a Garden Fence, I'm also certain there is only one side of it ... similarly to his opinions.

The I'm always right attitude, across numerous threads on here, really infuriates me and is one of the major reasons I find this forum increasingly pointless to visit.

Outside of that most of the threads on the Bulls board end up getting hijacked by the same old handful names, where do I delete my account?

That's what the foe list is for.

For me FA is one of the best contributors on here, but if you don't like the 'I'm always right' attitude I think your foe list would be full pretty quick on here!!

No reason to cancel your account though bud, remember we're all on here for the same reason regardless of any disagreements!

I've already submitted the request to delete my account, had enough.

His arrogant attitude isn't the only thing that drives me mad, it's the fact that he also then has to try and belittle people by adding the unnecessary 'big words' to back up his 'I am above you' beliefs.

Fair enough, don't think you should let it stop you posting though!

Quote: martinwildbull "a summary from 5RB.com(clause 5 - play for leeds again) [/iwas subject to the restraint of trade doctrine; L was wrong to dispute this on the footing that cl 5 merely allowed L to require H to resume his employment if he left C early; but in its overall context cl 5 was reasonable in the public interest, and the interests of both L and H. with any case the judge has to go through all the arguments and come to a judgement on their merits. Leeds put forward the employment resumption argument that it was not a restraint of trade, the judge said it was. He then looked at the entire context of the agreement itself and said that in these circumstances it was not a restraint, in fact Harris had benefited from it. so overall, the net effect, call it what you want, not a restraint of trade. Otherwise we would have won the case, Leeds would have paid our expenses, we wouldnt have sold Sam Hood would have a knighthood. So I apologise for calling you a pedant, sorry sophist, I should have said that you cannot see the wood for the trees.'" Whilst the above purports to be a selective summary : the full High Court decision 20/7/2005 can be found here- www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.html Hood unwisely took this to appeal and ended in May 2008 paying an undisclosed amount to Leeds + all cost + a public apology.

Quote: martinwildbull "a summary from 5RB.com(clause 5 - play for leeds again) [/iwas subject to the restraint of trade doctrine; L was wrong to dispute this on the footing that cl 5 merely allowed L to require H to resume his employment if he left C early; but in its overall context cl 5 was reasonable in the public interest, and the interests of both L and H. with any case the judge has to go through all the arguments and come to a judgement on their merits. Leeds put forward the employment resumption argument that it was not a restraint of trade, the judge said it was. He then looked at the entire context of the agreement itself and said that in these circumstances it was not a restraint, in fact Harris had benefited from it. so overall, the net effect, call it what you want, not a restraint of trade. Otherwise we would have won the case, Leeds would have paid our expenses, we wouldnt have sold Sam Hood would have a knighthood. So I apologise for calling you a pedant, sorry sophist, I should have said that you cannot see the wood for the trees.'" Whilst the above purports to be a selective summary : the full High Court decision 20/7/2005 can be found here- www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.html Hood unwisely took this to appeal and ended in May 2008 paying an undisclosed amount to Leeds + all cost + a public apology.

There's absolutely no need to apologise, but there's a simple point at issue. One of us has got it wrong, and the other is trying to explain why. It seems nobody has a problem with you repeatedly wrongly saying it was held NOT to be a restraint of trade. But me saying the opposite is to some annoying. Now I find that strange, but one last stab.

Let's imagine that a restraint of trade is a car. Let's imagine that a lawful restraint of trade is a green car, which you are free to drive away, but an unlawful restraint of trade is a red car, which must be seized and crushed.

We were arguing that it was not a car. The judge decided that yes it was a car, but that it was green.

So you're too stupid to click one button such that you'd never see my posts, then. Fair enough. But I suppose if you have a few other major reasons too, that's not so bad.


How is a thread "hijacked? So far as I know, any person who isn't banned can post at any time, on any thread, as much or as little as they want. If people choose not to post, that's their choice.


There is an office open on Tuesdays in Uzbekhistan.

No, it was never appealed. The case was rumbling on towards a full hearing when out of the blue a settlement was announced.

I can't understand people's problem's with FA. I have had a few disagreements with him in the past but its always been a constructive discussion.

I can't find the Leeds statement from 2008 - but from memory the only scrap we were thrown at the time was that Leeds accepted we'd acted in good faith (ie we'd been taken in by IH's team).
Both Bulls & Rhinos reserved the right to continue action vs IH - but as been said above, nothing was ever made public re this, or everyone dropped it.
Last year I think the YP reported ( with Leeds' permission) that the total cost to us, over 3 years, was £629k.
I think (with hindsight, which is a wonderful thing) paying in full, with cash, for the coral stand which took £3.2m of the £5.5m council settlement was a bigger blunder.
But all water under the bridge. 'Tis a new era now.

PS, did anyone find much interesting in Guilfoyles final report which was released 3 weeks ago?