You might suppose that. I could not possibly comment...

[size=75
(Except I already did in my earlier post, when I suggested he paid for it with his job. I of course should have prefaced that with "....many people believe..." if I am to avoid the need to retain the likes of Gareth's services...)[/size

he f*cked up.

It still leaves a slight sour taste in the mouth that many people still consider leeds the bad guys in all that, trying to ''de-stabalise the bulls''.

Now thats the bit that makes me chuckle, the thought that Iestyn had the faintest idea what "image rights" were all about.

Have I ever told you the story about the Iestyn and the bath that was advertised in the Leeds matchday programme ?

Rubbish. everyone knows Hitler was much better at Fullback

What I didn't agree with at the time was that IMO Leeds did not want Iestyn to come back. If he had it would have disrupteda team that was gelling with the emergenve of Burrow, McGuire and Sinfield. (Remember at the time Sinfield regularly played SO). His return would hasve disrupted the salary cap and probably meant that Leeds would have to release youngsters at the time. Before Iestyn went to the Bulls there was a lot of debate about whether Leeds should sign him and IIRC the majority didn't want him to re-sign. That is why i felt at the time that GH should let it go.

More rubbish spread by people on here at the time who knew nothing.

I said it at the time, and I will maintain it. I personally in the position I was in at a company, was approached and had meetings with GH on the subject of sponsoring Harris on his return.

Of course that could have been some elaborate bluff in order to cover themselves should a court case arise, but I doubt it.

Was that for image rights?

I stand by the statement that IMO Leeds did not want IH back at the time. Their agreement with IH meant that they were committed to taking him back and that is probably why they were approaching third parties to offload some of the cost if required. Just because they were preparing for his potential return based on an agreement signed three years earlier does not mean that they would have considered that option if there had been no agreement in place.

You may want to think about what I said in future rather than taking a bit of info you had and jumping to conclusions about the background to that info.

If there had been an internet in the 1980's I shudder to think what the discussion regarding Dean "Judas" Bell would have been like.

Who approached you, Phil Daly?

Unbelievable - all rugby players are thick - and not capable of making their own decisions!!

Graham Murray was a rugby player not sure you would say he was thick, Tony Smith the same etc

It was "Bait 'em and switch"
Get you interested in sponsoring Harris, agree Ts&Cs, and then switch the deal for a low profile player.

8 pages!

Respect to all the conspiracy theorists



My hypothesis is that Iestyn wore the wrong type of underpants in
[uall[/u of his meetings and was distracted by the subsequent chaffing.

A point, the good Mr justice Grey may, or may not have overlooked.

Erm, 9 pages and "Gray".

You've still not explained why my hypothesis about the circumstances around Iestyn signing his final Leeds playing contract are inconsistent with Justice Gray's Judgment, btw.

Spartacus.

But IM Spartacus.

I hadn't read this thread for a bit. Fun thread.

For the record, I believe Harris and his representatives and/or the Bulls acted inappropriately in the matter of his return to Super League. That is now a legal dispute, and one that I am not overly excited about, being happy to leave it for the legal eagles to pursue.

The 1999 cup win parade is about the onfield events in 1999. Harris was a key part of that success, and as such should be applauded as enthusiastically as anyone else. He virtually carried the team of the late 90s at times, and we looked truly lost on occasions when he wasn't there. There were some good players in that team, but it never seemed to hang together properly without Harris in it. That is what I will remember him for, not the pantomime villain he later became.

That said, I harbour a suspicion that his departure heralded the start of bigger and better things for Leeds. His absence left a huge void, which no one player was able to fill. SInce then, while we clearly have key players, those who we perform better with, we have never been so totally reliant on one player. Specualtion, and impossible to prove, but it's my theory and I'll stick with it for now.

Your "hypothesis" kept me amused for most of yesterday, but I doubt if I can be d to could keep it going for another day.

In any case, its your fairy tale. Shouldn't you be providing some evidence that Mr Justice Gray was wrong to believe GH's version of events?

Arthur Daly!

Fivetimes...

bdum, tsh.

I've never said he was wrong. I've said his Judgment was consistent with my hypothesis. It was.

In my time watching RL I've never seen a more one man team than that Leeds side, not that thats a good thing but it shows how good Iestyn was.

Indeed. Murray's teams could always defend, but the attacking game plan (code name: Operation Give-the ball-to-Iestyn) was a bit one-dimensional, and the likes of Ryan Sheridan (again, good player I'm not looking to knock him) sometimes looked a bit lost when Iestyn wasn't there to give the ball to. That said, Operation Give-the-ball-to-Iestyn was remarkably successful. He was in my view by far the best player in the league at that time.

I could never understand how the "bring Iestyn from full back to stand off after half time" ruse worked every time for two seasons without any of the opposition teams realising what was happening.