that's Burgess's take on it. There are two sides to a story

GH isn't one not to speak out in the media so I look forward to his response in Mondays yep.
Burgess knew he was out of contract. He must have been thinking for the past few months whether he wanted to stay or not. He must have had some financial figures in his head that will make him happy. If they came up short 3 days is enough imo. But if Burgess wanted a few more days I think he should be showed some respect given his services to the club. For the contract to then be suddenly off the table and then not to be played is out of order. Who is picking the team GH or McD?

I think it was sal who mentioned that he'd heard that something along the lines of biff was offered a deal and given two or three days to agree, now luke has come out and aired his side in the media, imo if lukes side is true then he has been treated very unfairly! infact i think reguardless even if he had turned the contract down he should still be treated fairly until his contract runs out at the end of the season. At the end of the day smithy annouced he was off to union at the end of the season two years ago and he was given a fair crack, and went out on a high scoring two tries in the GF. Chev in 06 still got picked despite announcing he was off to bath, calderwood despite rejecting a contract in 05. Id say its Mc picking the team.

We now know why biffs not in the side, just begs the question why clarkson isn't? if biff isnt going to play again i'd like to see singo given a few more games this season

Do we? Really? Because at the game last night I would of loved to have seen Burgess in the pack. Kylie and Kirke, next to useless last night.

I'd imagine Burgess non-selection has more to do with his attitude rather than simply the fact that he's leaving at the end of the season.

As has been said, I don't see why 3 days isn't long enough to work out what he wants to do considering his desire to go to Australia has been known at the club for months so surely he's been thinking of what would be acceptable to him to stay during this time. Why should the club wait any longer on a player who's commitment to the club is unlikely to extend beyond the end of this season and who has shown a poor attitude behind the scenes?
I wish Luke the best wherever he plays but let's not pretend he's been an integral part of Leeds' success. Senior, Peacock, Sinfield etc have proved their "service to the club", Burgess has been a useful part of the squad during his time but only a squad player for a handful of years, so whilst I wish him well I don't necessarily agree he's been badly treated or that it's a major blow to Leeds.

Well we know hes had a bust up with GH or MC or both, i'd love burgess in the side, he's been our most improved forward this year, i'd love clarky in the side too, kirke is 30 and doesnt exactly lead by example with a great work rate, clarky is 21 with great potenial who will tackle all day, but he isnt in the side why? he's obviously had a bust up with mc too

Maybe he wanted more time to see if a move to aus was realistic, just because he wants to go doesnt mean he will, forget the fact he wants to aus at the end of the season, he is contracted to us till the end of the this year, and deserves a fair crack, his performances warranted selection in the team, and for me he's right to be frustrated especially when he sees players like kirke and hauraki constantly getting selected despite some poor performances this season

Expect apologists for GH to mount a campaign slagging Burgess off.

It's inevitable.

i dont see what the difference is calderwood, walker, and smith, have all announced in the past that they were leaving and still got selected, if biff had be woefully awful then fair enough, but he'd really upped his game this season

Did those other players show a poor attitude when not played every single week? As I said earlier in the thread Burgess had played 11 of 17 SL games and had been injured for a couple of those games as well. So he was hardly completely overlooked. Compare to the much maligned Ian Kirke's attitude when dropped for the 2008 WCC. He trained his backside off and pushed his way back into the team.
If the rumours about Burgess' attitude are correct then I can understand why GH might not be too keen to wait for Burgess to make his mind up.

On the other hand if they're not correct then it would seem a bit strange from Hetherington. As has been said there are 2 sides to this, but I don't think the truth about what has really happened will come out for a while yet.

[uAnyone care to place the following events in their correct chronological order?[/u
Burgess displaying a bad attitude at the club... allegedly.
GH's offer of a contract to Burgess which must be signed within 3 days, otherwise it'll be withdrawn!
Burgess getting dropped from the team.

[uAnyone care to speculate on whether GH or Burgess (or both) are being economical with the truth? [/u
Quote GH - [i"I spoke to him at the start of the season and we discussed his short and long-term future. He [Burgess made plain his desire to go to Australia, so we have always been planning to be without him in the longer-term."[/i

Quote BURGESS - [i"We opened contract negotiations with the club and Gary (chief executive Gary Hetherington) put a three-year deal in front of me. He told me he wanted a decision in three days, but I didn’t think three days was enough time and I was unable to make a decision. I asked Gary for a bit more time, but then the contract was off the table. Since then, I have not played."[/i

Burgess states he wants to go to aus next season at the beginning of this season, he has improved his ball retention, looks fitter and was gaining good yards, that to me is a good attitude! I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure kirke was injured for the 2008 wcc. Luke got frustrated by not playing I'm pretty sure if he was playing poorly he'd just get his head down and work hard, but he's probably seen the poor performances of weller, kirke and to a certain extent bailey and thought right if I can't get in the team after we've been beaten 42-6 and 42-16 in consecutive weeks then I want answers can't blame him IMO

Burgess states he wants to go to aus next season at the beginning of this season, he has improved his ball retention, looks fitter and was gaining good yards, that to me is a good attitude! I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure kirke was injured for the 2008 wcc. Luke got frustrated by not playing I'm pretty sure if he was playing poorly he'd just get his head down and work hard, but he's probably seen the poor performances of weller, kirke and to a certain extent bailey and thought right if I can't get in the team after we've been beaten 42-6 and 42-16 in consecutive weeks then I want answers can't blame him IMO

Burgess states he wants to go to aus next season at the beginning of this season, he has improved his ball retention, looks fitter and was gaining good yards, that to me is a good attitude! I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure kirke was injured for the 2008 wcc. Luke got frustrated by not playing I'm pretty sure if he was playing poorly he'd just get his head down and work hard, but he's probably seen the poor performances of weller, kirke and to a certain extent bailey and thought right if I can't get in the team after we've been beaten 42-6 and 42-16 in consecutive weeks then I want answers can't blame him IMO

After 3 times I understand you.

Haha, yeh sorry about that comp was running slow, kept pressing submit and luckily it went through at the third attempt

Just to put another slant on it

The Rhinos have developed Burgess to where he is today. Sadly, thats not an international front rower, but a squad player on the fringes. In modern sport a 3 year deal (for a fringe player) is pretty difficult to come by so its no small offering from GH - for a player who has yet to truly prove his value. If Burgess had any intention of staying he would have signed within 3 seconds, never mind 3 days. Clearly his desire to be in Australia comes before his desire to improve himself as a RL player.

Good luck to him, I think the only reason his departure has generated so much fuss is because our pack is struggling at the mo, I personally dont think Luke would make a huge amount of difference. Sam on the other hand........

I am glad I don't work for you - you think employers responsibility to employees is purely legal. You think 3 days is sufficient to consider the details of a contract that forms a major time span in your playing career. I bet they didn't give Sinfield a 3 day ultimatum to mull over his last offer? Its a disgraceful way to treat any employee in any business regardless of their value/importance. As I said before constructive dismissal come to mind in the real world. The other thing we don't know are details of the contract - it could have an offer that sends out one message - on the other hand it could have been a Calderwood?

Given your attitude I can only deduce you must work in security because that is how they treat their people.

Has anyone thought that Burgess may have been the sacrificial lamb, deliberately axed to send out a loud and clear message that no matter who you are its GH that calls the shots?

I used to work for this guy who had a similar managerial technique, every now and again he’d sack one of his charges. Not one of the top earners (he wasn’t that stupid) but someone you really wouldn’t expect. He used to say “keeps um in check and let’s um know I’m still the boss".

3 days and then off the table is ridiculous. What if the Burgess had a rival offer from club X and I need another day to decide. What if the offer was below what Burgess thought was his market value and he wanted to think about it a bit longer? What if his family situation meant he needed more time?

The club won't implode after he leaves, but it's a shame that we are losing a good young prop.

The treatment after he asked for more time, is frankly shameful.

A fringe squad player has let every man and his dog know he wants to go to Australia at the end of his contract.

The club would like to keep him, so make an offer of a 3 year contract, probably more in hope than expectation.

The player, as if he is not in a strong enough position anyway through freedom of contract, wishes to hold all the aces by keeping the unsigned Leeds deal in his back pocket as security whilst trying to finalise his deal down under.

Leeds, needing to plan for next year, have no interest in stringing out the uncertainty for the rest of the year so stick a deadline on the offer. The player lets that deadline expire.

Looks straightforward enough to me, can't understand why so many are getting their knickers in a twist. There are much, much more important things for GH to deal with than Luke Burgess.

On the face of it, it sounds like our Chief Exec has the man management skills of an Army Corporal. Putting a new contract in front of any player and giving them a 3 day deadline is simply crass in the extreme.

If there was no intention on either sides part to actively look for an agreement, then a simple thanks for your efforts, and good luck in the future should have been the message at the conclusion of that meeting.

Maybe GH has taken his eye off the ball lately. Perhaps the South Stand refurb, and any financial difficulties are a distraction, and proving a bit harder to resolve than he would like.

Does anyone seriously believe that contract negotiations consist of a contract being put on the table and a time frame given to decide? GH and Burgess will likely have been discussing this possibility since at the very latest the start of the year.

Maybe the official offer was only on there for three days, but Burgess will have known the details of it for a lot longer than that.

I am glad you don't work for me as well because I think you would be a disruptive influence in the workplace by assuming that an employer somehow owes their employees something simply for working there. If the employee wants something extra from the employer then that employee should provide something extra to the employer. Be it excellent service, continued hard work or respect to the management & commitment to the employer. Why, as an employer should I provide you with additional benefits if you as an employee are not willing to provide something in return?

You talk of the real world and then talk of 11 out 17 SL appearances being cause for constructive dismissal. You obviously have no idea of what constructive dismissal actually entails.

No I don't think they would have given Sinfield 3 days but then Sinfields commitment & attitude weren't in doubt. Also a players importance is of extreme relevancy to the club re contract negotiations. I sincerely hope a lot more time & effort is put into the likes of Sinfield & McGuire's contract talks than, for example, Ian Kirke's or a mediocre academy lads'. You keep talking of "business" and a rugby league club as if they're the same thing. Earlier in this thread running a RL club was compared to running a supermarket. That is extremely naive and dangerous assumption to make and I hope the club can see the difference between a commercial business who's sole priority is to make higher profits and a rugby league who's intention is to grow a sustainable business whilst competing as best as possible on the pitch.

As I said earlier, I wish Burgess the best but. I don't agree he's been excessively harshly treated. I wonder whether the reaction on here would be different if Burgess were an average Aussie in the squad rather than an average Englishman from our academy.

Also, I don't work in security & never have. I've always worked in the real world where people understand constructive dismissal.

Kirke wasn't dropped for the 2008 WCC - he was injured and was out for more than half of that season.