Who are the others and also considering the length of his current deal i'd the say club definately hold the cards with this one but i personally wouldn't be-grudge players of Hardakers ilk getting more money even if we have to release fringe players and ones no longer required i.e Moore & Kirke

I see yer point Gotcha but Eastwood ,Buderus & Innes all returned home down under plus we got a decent fee for Harris to switch codes iirc.
The Hardaker situation if there is one is more straight forward imo and is more easily resolved with the Club in more control than the player.

I still think many supporters dont understand how a contract works. Kirke signed a 2 year extension last season so has a deal till the end of 2015. He isnt just going to give up that money.

So looks like Zak didn't have a clause triggering an automatic pay rise when he got capped by England?

That said, the lad is the best out-and-out fullback in SL. Should be one of our top earners.

I would say he has a few ahead of him in the salary list currently so cannot seeing Leeds being able to hand out a large chunk of salary:

Sinfield
Peacock
McGuire
JJB
Burrows
Moon
Delaney
Briscoe
Watkins

So would say he is in the mid range for the salary at Leeds, especially as he signed a lengthly contract last year would suggest a yearly increase, plus possible england rep top up, although he is currently in the knights squad.

If he wants more money, then it might be more than rumours, would not be surprised if he went this year or next, Leeds have a strong pool of young talent and some high earning oldies so somewhere we have to expect a couple leaving us for a better deal.

He probably does ok.
Slightly O/T, I had an interesting conversation with a former member of staff about the way in which players at Leeds are contracted - and no, I'm not about to reveal my source.
I was told that the senior squad are almost entirely salaried, with very few appearance-related add-ons. Largely fixed costs, so easy to calculate implications in terms of the SC.
Conversely, lower ranked players are not that well paid but do get decent money added on for playing appearances. This is supposed to incentivise them wrt making the first team.
However - and it's quite a big however - although we're not at the limit of the SC, were we to play these youngsters week in, week out we would soon be pushing the limits. So, were the coach to dip into his pool of junior talent too early in the season only for us to hit a late-season injury crisis, then we'd be searching desperately for a paddle (or joining the list of cap-busting cheats).
Sheds a bit of light on the match day selection process and perhaps explains how some of the more perplexing decisions came about.

I know exactly how a contract works and releases have been negotiated many times in the past and i'm pretty sure IF it was made clear he had no future with us and was just gonna be a Hunslet squad player he'd move on.

Really, Peacock is and has been one of the best SL players for the last ten years, you think he is not up there in salary....?

I understand your points on Hardacker, BUT his contract was drafted prior to last season those factors you mention don't have much impact, also going with a previous poster the younger players (hardacker was viewed as this for his last contract agreement) are on a lower wage with the play bonuses, he should be doing more than ok for a young guy in his 20's but with spotlight comes expectations and if he wants to be a top earner right now he shoud maybe move on or chill out a little and stay on at Leeds who gave him the chance and will repay him, if maybe a little later than he wants.....

This ties in with what i have been informed too Clearwing

It also clears a few things up regarding why certain players have subsequently chosen to move to other clubs whilst on the periphery of our regular starting first team

I had this discussion both on here and on the Bulls forum when Nick Scruton left us to move over to the Bulls

I had it on as good authority as you probably could get that Scrutes left the Rhinos solely due to the implications within his contract that wouldn't enable him to earn the maximum amount possible should he get injured

Where as the Bulls offered slightly more than the Rhinos did for his overall contract, but that he received the whole amount whether he played or not and thus making him a salaried player if you like

Before it gets mentioned as a possible reason for Scruton leaving, then all is long gone forgiven between Scrutes and JP and that they are still good mates

Having Scruton on a performance and appearance related contract doesn't look a bad choice, given his record since joining Bradford, does it?

Some of the top earners may need to move over for the kids, McGuire, Peacock, JJB

Definitely food for thought.