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 restrainta restraint which was clearly reasonable in the interests of both Leeds and Mr Harris. Accordingly ... in my judgment clause 5 of the Release Contract is not void as being in restraint of trade.'"

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 in my judgment clause 5 of the Release Contract is not void as being in restraint 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?

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.