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.

So why did Peacock make it known to people he was going to sign for Leeds well before the arrival of Harris.

No, it WAS a restraint of trade.

It was just not a restraint that the judge would declare void, because it was not an UNREASONABLE restraint:

Earlier Examiner states his pay was backdated to Sept 1st. Did he play against Hull for us that day?

redever etc, source please? Official biographies are always suspect, so if you have a better source such as his aunts dogs cousins parrot, please advise and I will review my comment in the light of new evidence. Clearly by your comment you disagree with all I say, so presumably you think the team improved after Harris joined.

Sweet FA. I was aiming my comments at the layman and depending on my memory of the case. but look at the last bit of your quote: [i in my judgment =#FF0000clause 5 of the Release Contract =#FF0000is not void =#FF0000as being in =#FF0000restraint of trade[/i. Let me edit that very same statement for the non sophist: "Clause 5 is not a restraint of trade".

PS FA, so you would have given Sam to Leeds?

Look mate,sorry but it IS a restraint of trade. ("In my judgment clause 5 is a restraint..." kind of gives it away!!)

1. Was it a restraint of trade in the first place?
Answer: Yes, it was.

2. So, given that it is a restraint of trade, does that fact make it void?
Answer: No, it doesn't (because the restraint was for benefit of both Leeds and Harris).

Your error might be in assuming that all restraints of trade are unlawful? But they are not.

I know you're trying to be clever, but with respect it isn't sophistry to politely tell you that it means the exact opposite of what you think.

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.

Yes, as I have already said in somewhat fewer words, the law of contract was deemed to take precedence over the law of free trade. If that is being clever, count me in.

No, it wasn't that.