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?

To Leeds, but then there is also whatever we paid for several years' worth of our own legal costs too.

Also we will have paid a fair whack to sign IH, plus a huge wage, although I suppose it could be argued some of that money would, if not for Harris, have been spent elsewhere, but whatever, it was a financially crippling ddecision to sign him.


Not sure about that. Since built, it has pulled in huge amounts of income, and is an asset that as I understand it, belongs to us. Also wasn't it the case that we had to have something somewhere on those lines for ground standards? Wasn't money down the drain, anyway, not like our Leeds bonus.


Didn't know. Is it online anywhere? Where's Adey when you need him?

Well this has moved on from the £20k for Kopout discussion.

Can I add that it's always an option to ignore those that get on your nerves on here. There's no sense in getting wound up by them and as you all know personal attacks are against the AUP.


As you were...

What if (hypothetical) the bulls remained in administration with the fans funding it to keep it going. Playing this season with a skeleton squad of players that were still under contract?

Not sure that the 1500 of us left still turning up[I include myself in that figure but in all honesty I couldn't be [iabsolutely[/i sure, even about me] could still be able to afford the administrators far from inconsiderable wages. To be honest, imo getting Gilfool off the payroll was the best bit of business done over the last closed season.

Think you may have fallen the wrong way off that line which divides genius from madness with that one Macbull.

His only way out was in refusing to be tupe'd over to the new company, which he quite legitimately didn't have to accept if he didn't want to, so under your scenario, as he would still have been under the old regime [in admin] he wouldn't have been tupe'd, so couldn't have legally left.

Unless anyone knows different..

Just because there's a few people on here that seem to know about contracts and the newco etc.

Does anyone know that if (in the highly unlikely event) Sam Burgess decided he wanted to return to the UK, would we still have the option to sign him that I remember was talked about at the time?

I'm not sure whether that would have died with the old company, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that, post-Harris, no club would be willing to put it to the test.