What proof do you have Donald had a contract which didnt have a get out clause or the option to withdraw after a certain period of time after signing?

Bluey'll have you. Can't talk about his mate like that.

oh well

Contracts are negotiable.

Had Eastwood manned up and approached Leeds during 2009 while he was still at the Bulldogs, I'm pretty sure the parties could have come to a settlement that would have avoided all the unnecessary whining in the media he's indulged in since.

Much different from the way Donald has handled his position, wouldn't you say?

Lovely but it's not that simple is it.

Donald has been at the club 5 years, he is retiring to go home with his wife and kids so they can start school "at home" and he can start a new career outside of rugby to provide for the future.

Eastwood liked the look of the £ on the contract he signed, then before he even got here showed regret, then asked to be released from a 3 year deal after playing 10? games to go play for another RL club.

Again if you want to know my views on Eastwood asking to be released then go have a look at that thread but if you think the two cases are similar then I worry for you young William.

Ah so that would put you firmly in this camp then?....

[iAnd please don't mention lucrative contracts either.....not worth the paper they're written on , according to the F@@kwit Massive.....it's the number of tries you've scored whilst hoovering up all that dosh from the aforesaid contracts that is the benchmark! Score lots, and orft you depart, before Contract's end, with rose petals being strewn up the Quantos boarding steps.

Apparently[/i

Remind us again what the conviction was for....and yes, it would make sense to move halfway around the World for the money don't ya think?

I really don't understand the anti-Donald movement on here.

I can relate to the anti-Eastwood'ers on a number of levels, and I may even be one......

but Donald........

To be fair we only have 2 anti Donald's and 1 who would rather eat dog shat than praise the club they "support" for anything.

Contracts are indeed negotiable, but for the purpose of the debate let us assume it was a fairly standard pro forma, with a get out close for all parties that it would be terminated, say in the event of a serious injury.

What I suspect is not negotiable, is your legal obligation to fulfill the aforesaid contract, after you have added your signature to it, and that despite the various red herrings being trawled, (number of games/tries scored etc etc) is what we are discussing.

I'd liken their 'movement' to my bowel movements.

But that would be un-fair.

As my bowel movements have sustenance behind them.

In which case, it's a poor discussion as I don't recall anyone stating that signed contracts can't be legally enforced?

Given this seems to be the main crux of whatever point it is you're trying to prove, I take it your assertion is that Leeds threatened legal action in order to get Eastwood into the country in the first place despite the fact he had already expressed reservations about whether he wanted to be here?

Correct.

I can only think of 2 recent cases where an antipodean precedent has been set for for agreeing/signing a contract and not fulfilling it.

Have I missed any?

There's no anti Donald movement per se, despite the nonsense posted by some of our more exitable fans. And I suspect there is 100 per cent support for the guy when it comes to wishing him well in the future.

What there has been highlighted, is the sheer hypocrisy of some who see nothing wrong in one guy failling to honour his contract, but are more than happy to vilefy another Leeds player for doing the same.

And there's a lot of fun to be had by poking those Clampetts in the eye!

Can you be said to fail to honour a contract if it's not started yet...?

mark campbell, mark massa & vince fawcett

if a sandwich 2006 & 2010 not the best bread for different reasons but quality filling inbetween

I'm sure all our fans, regardless of opinion of SD's overall playing ability, would not argue about his record or his service to the club over the 5 years he's been here. I think the 'Donald bashing' is just a backlash against the perceived harshness Eastwood has received on these boards since his decision to go home at the end of the season.

The point should have been blindingly obvious to such an opinionated chap like yourself. They both signed legally binding contracts and both were seeking not to fulfill them. Their reasons, and the assorted excuses offered up by some on here have no bearing whatsover on that particular point!

Assertion? Feel free to point out in any of my posts anything remotely close to what you are claiming.

Might I also suggest, that whilst your strawman fallacy approach is several levels higher in thought than what has been offered up over the past couple of days, it would be better served over on Sin Bin?

Isn't that what they refer to as a "backhanded compliment"?

Oh, and btw - don't be so liberal with your tarring brush. My opinions, whether you agree with them or not, are my own and not influenced by anyone elses.

Do you not agree then that the method by which both individuals have chosen to try "not fulfilling" their contracts could or should have a bearing on how they are perceived by fans?

Perhaps G1 could shine some light. Hypothetically of course.

You are living in a different world if you think length and quality of service are not contributing factors when decisions are made between an employer and employee.

Who exactly has upset you with differing views on Donald & Eastwood? because I know what my thoughts were on Eastwood and what I posted.

Indeed. A reasonable employer will look to the welfare of his players, and I can see why the devious approach by Eastwood, does not stack up well against Donalds, and in all truth I have absolutely no problems with Scott Donald's reasoning or desire to return home.

I have also no axe to grind regarding Eastwood either, other than this is precisely the kind of talent that GH should be signing with an eye to our future, and to loose his services is a pain in the butt.

The over the top platitudes by the gormless few were there to be shot down, although I reckon it's run its course now.

Next week, I expect Numpties R Us to be offering up similar opportunities!

Fair enough but I didn't see anything OTT myself.

The contract starts when there is an offer, acceptance and consideration. In this particular instance there will be no consideration from either party as Donald will not be offering his playing services and Leeds will not be paying him.

Thus, there is no contract. It has been rendered void.

Making the situation both legally and morally a whole different ball game to the Eastwood situation.

HTH.

Hummm - there was a former poster of these boards (who swore never to return) who used to refer to Donald as a chancer too.