Aside from being garbage, that link is very old, unless we have re-signed Gareth Ellis.

Harris probably did want to maximise his earnings but at the end of the day we came off best. The player that left rugby league wasn't the same player that came back. He chose Bradford and in doing so he probably did us a favour. We were compensated for it. Win, win situation for Leeds. Lets move on and on Friday give him the plaudits he deserves for helping to end our cup drought.

From conversation with IH's previous advisor, he deliberately signed the last deal with Leeds to guarantee us a transfer fee, against Tom's advice.

He then had his hand forced up his back by GH with the last minute price hike and "contract termination document". None of this was part of the original discussions, so IH had a right to be tee'd off.

With regard to the court case, it was always a case of "we could afford to lose it, but Bradford couldn't", so really it was a game of poker. It was also a great opportunity for GH to embarass CC, so it was just too good a chance for him to turn down.

IH should be remembered for his exploits on the field at Leeds, as so few people know the real details behind his exit that they really are not qualified to comment on it. He should receive the applause and reception worthy of a great player for Leeds.

he should take an open university degree as a lawyer because he has been really unlucky to get bad advice when at warrington,leeds and cardiff.
either that or he was stupid enough to use the same one three times.

as a player, he was class, wonderful.
as a person, if he said it was sunny i would look out of the window

You know, if Adolph Hitler had played a few seasons for us, and later claimed his brain fart in 1939 was the result of bad advice, I'm pretty sure there would be a few numpties on here loudly proclaiming his abilities at stand off!




At least GI had the curtesey to dress his fantasy up as a hypothesis. This is simply more of the same regurgitated nonsense.




With the greatest respect Batley for a factual summary on Iestyn Harris, Mr Justice Grey's [url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1591.htmljudgment[/url is not that hard to understand.

I must admit, now the history books are getting to be written, I find the summation from Gareth and yourself, especially regarding Hetherington's actions and possible motives, quite enlightening. Just a pity that this is not quite the story that was portrayed at the time, eh?

At the end of the day, the Harris affair pretty well did to the Bulls off the park what your team was not able to do on it. CC paid for it with his job, but the club paid a far higher price. I'm not sure that should be what the game is about, but what's done is done and we move on. Harris will go down in your history as one of your greatest ever players and I can't imagine why any would not applaud him. In Bradford's history, as a player whose signing brought about the downfall of the club - but equally I can't imagine why any should blame him personally.

Whether Hetherington took advantage of the situation at the time Harris left us or not it does not excuse Caisley's idiocy and arrogance in signing the player.

Your comment about what we "couldn't do" on the field is a bit bizarre. We weren't far off you in your greatest year, 2003, and had beaten you twice already in 2004.

You were the architects of your own downfall. You wilfully signed him and you wilfully refused to enhance your captains contract and play Leon at Stand off. Don't try and lay any blame for your current demise around these parts.

GH may well have pulled a blinder over Harris but that had nothing to do with us causing Bradford any ills. Chris Caisley shouldn't have touched him or should have done the proper thing and approached us.

Besides, I am not entirely sure that the Harris signing was the sole reason for your on field issues right now.

With the greatest of respect there is nothing in Justice Gray's judgment that covers what the parties discussed when Iestyn signed his final playing contract. Nothing at all. And my "hypothesis" is entirely consistent with Harris' evidence, which the Judge accepted.

There's nothing in the Judgment that says that did not happen. The judgment is entirely consistent with my "hypothesis.

Lest we forget, Mr H did used to be a double glazing salesman

To be fair mate G has it summed up imo,caisley couldn't resist the oppertunity of getting one over GH and thought he was been clever!
As for harris himself outstanding player who imo got caught out trying to get out of an agreement he knew full well about.
I think martyn saddler summed it up well in the league express when he wrote that it was at best very foolish of a qualified solicitor(caisley) who he deemed an inteligent man to try and take GH on in this matter and that there was only ever gonna be 1 winner.

To be fair, Harris is a rugby player which, be definition makes him not quite as bright as those telling him what to do.

His only real crime is believing the advice of a trained legal professional – “don’t worry about it son, I know what I’m doing”.

He gave his all for Leeds so will get nothing but admiration from me.

Harris at his peak was a far better player than McGuire. He could pass long, short and delayed, and he could also kick, which is more than McGuire is capable of.

The bulls would never know!!

Harris was instrumental in the Bulls SL victory.

So was breaching the cap to sign morley!!!

Did I suggest it did in what I posted? I and a lot of others - including, I suspect his fellow directors, took what Caisley told us on trust - as you well know. Over quite a few aspects of this affair. I'm sure I was not the only one to feel very angry and betrayed when it transpired that we made fools of ourselves defending a position when certain key facts appeared not to have been told to us - or that CC was maybe not able to back up what he had originally assured people of (I choose my words carefully).



Look at what I said Gareth. I did not say "You" did to us...I said "the Harris affair". All Leeds did to us was what Caisley gave you opportunity to do - which Hetherington gleefully took. That only became fully clear much later. And what I was talking about was not beating us, but absolutely hammering us - maybe that bit was not entirely clear. You'd never, apart from maybe once when you knocked us out of the cup at VP, absolutely hammered us IIRC. And again, I stress, I said "the Harris affair", not "you".

I never got to the bottom of just how much of IH's contract was funded by external image rights - and so was likely from funding not necessarily available to pay more to Peacock. But again, it seems quite clear now that JP was badly served by Caisley (and Noble?) and Saints have proven that Noble was completely and utterly wrong about Pryce. Nowhere did I suggest that was down to Leeds. It was down to the Harris signing.



Of course it was not. The decision - forced or otherwise - to take over Odsal has been pretty instrumental too. There are other important historic reasons too, I suspect, about which I am not going to speculate on here, which might explain a few things too. But it still seems to me that the Harris signing, and everything that resulted from it, was the biggest single cause of the accelerated decline of the club.


What I was referring to in my first paragraph was the acknowledgment that Harris might have been a bit badly done to by GH at the time of his move - both you and BR seemed to indicate that. At the time all the business was going on, all we ever got told from on here was that IH had no moral argument at all, did we not? And that Hetherington was only doing what was morally right rather than taking an in-his-lap opportunity to get one over Caisley. Now the dust has settled, some of you guys are acknowledging the wider, less partisan picture in the same way that some of us are.

Yes indeed, it is just a pity that the story now - from both sides - is not the story that was portrayed at the time. Would have saved us all a lot of trouble, and for some of us a load of anguish and embarrassment.

That was not why we breached the cap. People keep saying it will not make it any more true.

I think so too. We can see more clearly what we are missing now he has gone, even if he was never as good for us as he was for Leeds. Unfortunately, he catches the blame far too much for the consequences of his signing - as I continually said while he was playing for us. Too few seemed to agree though.

You still "signed" a player for 6wks who played a key role in the GF and were found to have breached the salary cap that year were you not??
Imo you never got harris at his peak and do you think the signing was worth it???
As for the pooh you find yourselve's in now i don't think it's just down to harris or the grattan landfill.
Trusting the "best young english coach" in SL for 3 yrs has played a major part in your demise mate no matter how anyone try's to dress it up.

It's not often I agree with you David but you are spot on.

Because of three factors which together were subsequently determined to represent a breach of the cap. All factors where the RFL determined the club believed they were within the cap at the time and where there was no intent to break the cap. The club signed Morley believing themselves to be within the cap. That was, after all, why the RFL meted out pretty well the minimum penalties available to them and publically said what they did. Compare and contrast Wigan. Will be interesting to see what comes out of the current HMRC/RFL activities, and whether they unearth further examples across the game of clubs believing themselves to be cap-compliant but subsequently transpiring that they were not?



Agreed; and no. Does not need you to tell us that - the history books already prove it.



I've posted my views on that at length on RAB, which you frequent, so I'll not waste further time and space on here repeating myself.

That will be very interesting but do you seriously think there will be back-dated penalties?????
I honestly don't no matter how many wigan,saint's,bulls or hull fans bleat about it!!

I suspect the fans of two at least of those clubs will have cause to look a bit closer to home when it all comes out (if it ever does).

But no, I don't. I suspect that both the number and the identity of the clubs implicated - plus the fact that the SC Auditor has already signed off on earlier years - will mean it would be both highly embarrassing and impracticable.

But that still does not mean that it may well transpire that certain clubs DID exceed the cap, possibly significantly even if those now-identified breaches go unpunished. My guess is that any such breaches will be explained away as being "...where the RFL determined the clubs believed they were within the cap at the time and where there was no intent to break the cap." You might just recognise those words...?

Just re-read your post and my reply and perhaps I was a little defensive. I thought you were muddling how GH might've pulled the wool over Iestyn's eyes with the dispute with the Bulls, two separate issues, but clearly you weren't so, sorry.

Iestyn was naive. GH was either very shrewd or took advantage. regardless, we reached a point where to get what he wanted Iestyn signed what he did.

From that point forward my opinion remained consistent. Iestyn was guilty of a clear breach and the Bulls had an arguable case to answer for Inducing it. Leeds had every right to pursue it.

In reality Caisley was completely culpable. Even if he suspected the contract between Leeds and Iestyn wouldn't be upheld he should've had the courtesy to approach us. He stuck two fingers up at us, rolled the dice and lost, or you guys lost. From a man in his profession it was very questionable judgment.

Which is probably the main reason he resigned as chairman and not the reason's he gave for his resignation.