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!!