Have you made an unfounded accusation?

You can t have made an illegal approach if no a approach was made

Just posted this on Leigh board in response.

Well. Reading brierleys public reply to Leigh, we can answer the op. No, no it appears we did not make an illigal approach, need to look closer to home for the source of the troubles. Id be surprised if he's a free agent for long though if he does walk out on April 1st.

I hope the bulls don't publish a single word on this issue.

Christ just got home from leigh, thought it was quiet theyre all online

I think the date he's saying he becomes a free agent is very apt for the whole circus that's going on at Leigh at the moment

Just reading the stuff that's going back and forth, I feel slightly vindicated regarding Leigh's off-season recruitment.

I questioned if players who seemed to be at the centre of the off-field issues at Salford last year were really good signings for Leigh and if they would improve or disrupt the team.

This whole thing about asking for an improved contract to stay seems, IMO, directly related to these new guys coming in on inflated salaries for this league and an existing important player wanting to be in the same pay bracket. Especially given the rumours regarding why Chase isn't playing, which just add fuel to the fire

While it's all very interesting, surely there is no parallel at all with Harrisgate.

If I assume that Brierly DOES have a "4 weeks notice" clause in his contract then he does have a right to leave. He'd be leaving IN ACCORDANCE with his contract NOT in breach of his contract.

Leigh's utterances are often harder to decipher than Sanskrit but I am assuming he does have such a clause, because their statement refers to their view that the "alleged clause is unenforceable". Maybe the word "alleged" was meant to suggest it may not exist, but something obviously does, because if it doesn't, how could a non-existent clause also be "unenforceable"?

Anyway, the point is, IF a club were to try to persuade Brierley to leave Leigh and join them, then as long as he KEPT TO THE TERMS of his contract, there would be no "breach" and so that club could not have induced a breach. If Brierley specifically leaves 100% in accordance with a clause in his contract, that is the precise opposite of a breach of contract.

It also has the slightly mad consequence that, from a legal point of view, any club could approach Brierley at any time to try to persuade him to give notice and join them, if they knew about the clause, as long as they made it clear they insisted on him honouring his contract and giving the due contractual notice.

You should come and be a Wakey fan Rog if you like stability, we don't do controversy

The law isn't always an exact science though and can be hard to interpret, even for lawyers - didn't Iestyn Harris' own legal team believe he was free to offer his services elsewhere, before the judge decided otherwise?

Oh ffs, don't get him started...

We folded, like a cheap suit, before the judge ruled...

Yes, I know, but he'd clearly stated his POV in an earlier statement IIRC, so I guess he would have been unlikely to change his mind.

Chissy it seems Wakie are a bit more stable these days, is that the case