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.