Brutal : Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:35 pm  

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25213405-23214,00.html Leeds are getting a bit of bad luck aswell it seems.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25213405-23214,00.html Leeds are getting a bit of bad luck aswell it seems.

Re: Brutal : Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:47 pm  

Ewwenorfolk wrote: http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25213405-23214,00.html Leeds are getting a bit of bad luck aswell it seems. After Hetherington's antics over Bird, I find I can bear any bad luck Leeds may suffer with considerable fortitude, truth be told. That said, the article is not identifying any new problems for Leeds, just issues for Eastwood.

Ewwenorfolk wrote: http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25213405-23214,00.html Leeds are getting a bit of bad luck aswell it seems. After Hetherington's antics over Bird, I find I can bear any bad luck Leeds may suffer with considerable fortitude, truth be told. That said, the article is not identifying any new problems for Leeds, just issues for Eastwood.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:45 pm  

Wouldn't it be awful if, given that he has a contract with them, El Presidente was having to pay his wages. . . . ?

Given that the NRL have blocked his playing over there because of that contract I suspect that any restrictions on Mr Eastwood would, for the good of the game and to show SL in the correct light, mean that he is being financially backed/supported by said Presidente

: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:42 am  

Bullpower wrote:

Wouldn't it be awful if, given that he has a contract with them, El Presidente was having to pay his wages. . . . ?

Given that the NRL have blocked his playing over there because of that contract I suspect that any restrictions on Mr Eastwood would, for the good of the game and to show SL in the correct light, mean that he is being financially backed/supported by said Presidente

would we have been held like that with Bird should he have been playing in the NRL? I know it's hypothetical.

: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:53 am  

Bullpower wrote:

Wouldn't it be awful if, given that he has a contract with them, El Presidente was having to pay his wages. . . . ?

Given that the NRL have blocked his playing over there because of that contract I suspect that any restrictions on Mr Eastwood would, for the good of the game and to show SL in the correct light, mean that he is being financially backed/supported by said Presidente

I suspect that you might be wrong, and I also suspect that Eastwood had not mentioned his previous driving convictions to Hetherington.

: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:40 am  

EmmaMur01 wrote:

I suspect that you might be wrong, and I also suspect that Eastwood had not mentioned his previous driving convictions to Hetherington.

" I suspect that any restrictions on Mr Eastwood would, for the good of the game and to show SL in the correct light, mean that he is being financially backed/supported by said Presidente"

Really? So you don't think Leeds are doing that

That's a bit bit harsh . . . and surely not in the spirit of the game . . . . isn't it?

: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:43 am  

phillgee wrote:

would we have been held like that with Bird should he have been playing in the NRL? I know it's hypothetical.

Probably not. Apparently we do things that are ". . .a blow to the reputation of the Super League".

"We are", after all, are we not, "talking about the credibility of the entire competition here."

: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:19 am  

I'm sure most impartial observers will have formed their own view of the motives behind Hetherington's OTT, intervention, especially when compared with his subsequent strangled minimalist response to when Bird signed for Cats.

: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:54 am  

I don't understand, how does this reflect badly on Leeds?

: Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:46 pm  

Bullpower wrote:

" I suspect that any restrictions on Mr Eastwood would, for the good of the game and to show SL in the correct light, mean that he is being financially backed/supported by said Presidente"

Really? So you don't think Leeds are doing that

That's a bit bit harsh . . . and surely not in the spirit of the game . . . . isn't it?

What other company would pay a new employee if they were unable to secure permission to live and work in the country? Is it none? I suspect Leeds are paying Eastwood exactly nothing. Hetherington has said that the loan agreement with the Bullfrogs has been set up to allow the player to earn a living while the visa dispute is settled.