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!