I know, just ribbing batley's claim.

You know that I don't mean that every time a player comes over to make a special gesture to the fans that he is going to leave, but the rumours had been doing the rounds about Innes to Manly for quite some time before he went.

It was simply a case of two plus two makes four, rather than the more frequently assumed five.

Harris played in the first Sl game at Headingley, though not for Leeds. Harris signed after SL2 had started.

It was arguably the end of the Winter season pre Sl but I can see how it's confusing. It's also irrelevant as Innes participation in that comp ended even before the SL1 season began, as you say.

You could have been keeping your powder dry? Not having any hard evidence doesn;t stop Gotcha making nonsense claims. I just expected more of you.


I'm pleased to aim or aim to please.

Unlike Gotcha who is more than willing to stick the boot in.

4th April 1997 against Wigan at Headingley his debut

Thanks for repeating a fact TVOC posted half way up the previous page. Very helpful.

You might not remember him going to the press saying we were continue persuing compensation when he took over, hell we all can't remember everything. But I am surprised you have forgotten the second occassion when Bradford were trying to sign him for 2007, as that is when GH made a bigger issue of it. Thats why to forget it twice I find hard to believe.

I thank other posters for highlighting yet again Gareths boring chilidsh agendas, once again proving just how far wrong he is when he does this. Of course we would all hope a poster would at least get their facts right when trying to be big.

And BigRob, I said name me a player that left Leeds under contract where Leeds demanded compensation. Harris and Tansey were sold by Leeds, Harris fair enough pushing the agenda for it to be done and GH getting a good deal out of it, but went with the clubs blessing.

With regard to Pratt I have a different memory. I may be completely wrong but IIRC Pratt was released by the club along with Sheridan, Farrell and Fleary effectively being told he wouldn't play for the club again. It was Pratt that pursued Leeds for compensation after signing for Bradford.

Now who's going to tell me I'm suffering from dementia or Alzheimers.

Is it true that Hetherington doesn't forgive and he never forgets?

It appears so judging by the above tale. I'd have relented (for a nominal fee, naturally) and let Bradford sign the 37 year old. That would have been hilarious.

So after that failed attempt they went for a youth ploicy in 2008/9 signing Steve Menzies.

It makes the Menzies signing look like an act of genius (which it was anyway), thank goodness there were a few shonkers in there to balance the (Barrie) Ledger.

As if missing the expanded Play-Off's in consecutive season's wasn't bad enough just think how much worse it could have been.

That was my take on the Karl Pratt situation. We certainly released him at the same time as Shez and Andy Hay. I remember the YEP article at the time but don't recall Fleary being in the same group???

Shortly after that at the Academy Grand Final I remember a fairly decent crowd singing "There's only one Karl Pratt," "Gary Hetherington is a w*#ker," and "You can stick you rugby union up your behind" as Pratty turned up in the crowd (possibly to watch his brother?)

I'm pretty sure Fleary was one of them but I think I was wrong with Farrell and you're right Hay was the other one. Seem to remember Fleary wouldn't sign for anyone in case it affected his compo. He signed for Hudds when the dust settled.

You're not questioning Gotcha's "facts" now are you?

So Eastwood leaving won't be any different to Tansey or Harris leaving then?

Guess?

Here's a YEP article from around that time:

[size=150=#0000BFIt could have been different for Pratt[/size
=#80000013th December 2002

[iLeeds Rhinos chief executive Gary Hetherington today revealed Great Britain winger Karl Pratt may still have had a future at his hometown club if he had not taken them to a tribunal. The 22-year-old is now a free agent with Super League rivals Bradford Bulls favourites to sign him after the Rugby Football League’s advisory panel ruled against the Rhinos in the employment row yesterday.
Pratt was told by Rhinos coach Daryl Powell that he was no longer part of his plans earlier this year, despite having two years left on his contract, and so he was destined for a season in the reserves.
Leeds had released fellow Great Britain duo Ryan Sheridan and forward Andy Hay from their existing contracts following a similar decision but were hoping to demand a transfer fee for Pratt and the tribunal was called in Leeds to resolve the dispute. The hearing ruled that Pratt was no longer bound by his contract and that he should be made a free agent with immediate effect.
However, Hetherington today commented: “If there had not been a tribunal we were due to make a decision on Karl’s future.
As we did with Andy Hay and Ryan Sheridan, we may simply have released him, but we may also have retained him within our 20-man squad. That decision would have been made last week but as the player took us to a tribunal it was effectively taken out of our hands.” Hetherington admits he is disappointed that Leeds will be unable to demand a fee for the player who has scored 38 tries in 81 appearances for the Rhinos. “We paid £70,000 for Karl in 1999 when he was just 18 years-old and he’s since graduated to full international status,” he said. “We’re disappointed things didn’t work out for him in the Rhinos squad but these things happen.
We wish Karl the best whatever he decides to do.”
Pratt said: “I am hugely relieved by the decision and am glad that the whole affair is finally over. I fully intend to get my career back on track and have huge ambitions to regain selection for Great Britain. I felt that I had no future at Leeds and I am delighted that I now have the opportunity to make a fresh start at a new Super League club. I would like to thank everyone who has supported me including my family, friends, the players and the fans at Headingley as well as my legal team.”[/i

So Hetherington didn't demand a transfer fee for Pratt like Gotcha claimed then?

He's on a roll with this one is Gotcha.

It was Leeds that initially said he wouldn't play for the (1st) team again and he was not part of their plans but I hold my hands up they did not release him.

But in that context, Hetherington's pushing for a fee would probably have been more to do with the tribunal and I would suggest encouraging the tribunal not to give compo for the term of the contract should they rule in Pratt's favour.

Given the animosity between the Rhinos and the Bulls I would suggest that his threats to the Bulls with regard to Innes, was another case of brinksmanship along with his comments about Eastwood.

I'm no lover of Hetherington, but I would suggest in this area he knows how to play the game. He'll win some and he'll lose some but he'll set out is opening salvos from a position that best serves the interests of the club.

No thread with Karl Pratt involved can be complete without the obligatory photo:



Given the evidence above, it's a bit rich for GH to say they were hoping to get a fee for him...

Skillzs like those should come at a price though.

Hetherington didn't push for a fee.

In the article it says GH would've considered [ieither [/ipushing for a fee or putting Pratt in the 20 man squad but Pratt taking the matter to a tribunal brought the whole thing to a head.

I noted that on this article, but I don't know whether he made a claim stating he wanted a fee previous to this. My guess would be that he did. He would have been aware of the bulls sniffing around and would have probably fired a warning across their bows saying he's contracted to us and we want a fee, otherwise Pratt wouldn't have needed to go to a tribunal to get his contract cancelled.

i've already been put in my place by TVOC once, I don't intend to supply him with further ammunition even if you want to. Whether TVOC (or others) has kept his powder dry to use that ammunition I shall wait on with anticipation

Come on Finglas, you have to go balls out. Say it with enough conviction and people will beleive it to be true.

Except that pesky TVOC. I could have gotten away with loads if it wasn't for that pesky TVOC.

You are Hetherington and I claim my €5 oops £5.

On second thoughts you're in the legal profession (so you tell everyone), you argue till the death and convince many to agree with you whilst alienating opposition opinion only to be found out by the mild mannered TVOC. You are Caisley and TVOC is Hetherington and I now claim £10

Shouldn't that be "meddling" ?