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.

Nail on the head.

Burgess had no intention of signing. He's gone. If GH lets Burgess dangle him around for a few months and we miss out on a replacement the same experts on this forum criticising GHs style would be having a pop at him for "taking his eye off he ball".

I see Sal has moved on from comparing Burgess to Ellis to comparing him with Sinfield now.



I'd just like to remind everyone this is LUKE we're talking about, not SAM. Calm down,

Spot on. I wish Luke well, I think he's been a useful addition to the squad for the last few years.

I don't see the issue in releasing him. He wants t go, cant get in the squad and needs to be playing to get a contract with someone else. Personally though I wont expect to see him in the NRL anytime soon. Toyota Cup yes but not NRL. I expect to see him at Widnes, Cas, Bradford or Salford in a few years.

We cant be held to ransom by a single player who only has his sites set on moving to the other side of the world to be with his brothers. With the money freed up we can improve the deals on the likes of Ambler, Pitts and our next potential young prop in Brad Singleton

The reason he can't get in the squad is because he wants to go not the other way round.

Indeed.

And despite the spin from GHHQ, Burgess is most definitely among the top 4 props currently at the club and ahead of the likes of Kirke and Bailey... or at least was until being summarily dropped from the squad.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face immediately springs to mind.

My thoughts exactly.

heard on the radio an interview with matheson this afternoon (the bulls match) he said he had expressed an interest in Luke but Luke had declined to go on loan and was prepared to play for his position at us. prehaps a case of Gary calling someone's bluff?

Hendrix is dead? Noway!

The '3 days' would have followed discussions over a period of time - including Burgess basically telling GH he was looking to move to Oz. Burgess would have known exactly what was in the offer before it was tabled. Every single contract negotiation I've had that has been the case. The 3 day validity would simply have been to force Burgess' hand. Which it obviously did - it forced Burgess to walk away from it, which he would have done had GH given him 3 months to decide.

GH didn't want to p*ss around with someone for months. Last year he got slated by loads of people on here (me included) for doing that with Eastwood and then being left a minimal amount of time to find a replacement. That was Ben Cross IIRC.

Burgess' non-selection obviously has nothing to do with him not being here next year, or the 3-day period or the offer not being that great. There have been plenty of players who have played right to the end under GH, even when it was known they were leaving - even to Union. As far as I can remember, Burgess is the first to have been dropped in this way. The evidence in that sense would tend to support GH rather than the player.

I am completely indifferent as regards Burgess but I am struggling to remember anything he has done in a Leeds shirt that stands out.

Gareth - surely every employee has the right to be treated equally - whether you are the CEO or a cleaner - hence the comparison to Sinfield - he runs the playing side doesn't he? I am not comparing his abilities to either Ellis or Sinfield nor his importance to the side just his entitilement to the same treatment as those two and Lee Smith.

You seem to think because he is fringe player his rights should reflect that - bizarre way of thinking - his importance should be reflected in the quality of the offer not timescale for acceptance.

With all this talk of employment rights, I think I'm missing something. I tend to work on fixed term contracts. When those contracts end, my employer can either extend it, offer me another on different terms, or just say 'ta ta' to me. On the flip side, I am free to resign at any point, but at the end of my contract I can walk away if I'm fed up, want a change or have a better offer elsewhere.

How the end of that period is handled by the employer will tend to reflect my perceived worth to the organisation.

How different is this situation? Luke Burgess was/is not a permanent employee, after all.

Indeed. I'd be interested to know exactly what employment rights it's though have been infringed.

And I concur completely with Brisbane's last post as well.

I would think the only similarity between your contract and that of Burgess is the fact of two parties? I doubt Burgess could just walk away without a penalty e.g. Eastwood!! you will have a 3 month notice period? - these contract will not have a notice period if things don't work out.

I have no objection to how Burgess has been treated provided the treatment is consistent and that is where you end up with issues. As I said compare the 3 days he was given to make a decision compared to how long Sinfield will have been allowed to make his decision. It could be Sinfield was also given three days but I would suggest that is unlikely.

I assume the contract offer will need legal verification - Sinfield doesn't have an agent he uses a solicitor to review his contracts - this will take time and a good solicitor will need clarity on certain points.

The value to an employer will be recognised in the quality of the contract e.g. Sinfield's contract will have been of a significantly higher value than that offered to Burgess - quite correctly.

People might take you, and the point you're struggling to make, more seriously if you hadn't, predictably, singled out Sinfield as your example.

How do you think the time period for Burgess's new contract compares to the time period for McGuire?

I bet McGuire was given much longer than 3 days? And so he should. Because

1. He's a million times better player than Burgess
2. He'd be much, much harder to replace than Burgess
3. He'd be much more in demand from other clubs than Burgess
4. Unlike Burgess, he probably hadn't made clear his intentions to leave at the end of his contract

It's called negotiation David and, I've got news from you, not all employees are treated the same in any organisation. Do you think the investment bankers at Barclays are dealt with the same as the cleaners when it comes to contract negotiations?

You see, I negotiated rather harder for my current job than I did for the last one. Partly because my last contract was a project that looks proper mint on my CV, so I'm a more attractive (not physically like) prospect now. But also because I knew the competition was far less for this one, so the chances that they could just tell me to stuff it and find someone of the same calibre cheaper were much reduced.

Oh.