What I find hard to understand is IF there has been something untoward with Zak that could lead to serious trouble.
Why was he even named in the 19 man squad in the first place?
Surely if it is that bad he would not have been named?

Perhaps he was named because there was no certainty, but enough doubt to draft Golding into the squad.

It does now seem we might have seen the last of Zak in a Leeds shirt. A crying shame if so as the lad looked altogether the most talented FB for some time IMO.
However if he is found guilty of some new misdemeanour he can't claim he wasn't given a fair crack of the whip.

Golding is highly rated by many but i think i will miss Zak's defensive capabilities.

I would have dropped zac anyway, his form as been poor, and Golding is a talent deserve his chance. As for last time un a Leeds shirt, it was burrow last week so we will see.

Hoisted by your own petard and not for the first time!! Thought you were being clever jumping on the back of another post, hypocrite. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. When I struggle to match you intellectually I will stop posting - it isn't going to happen any time soon mind.

Am I missing something? Why do people think zak has done something wrong?

Hopefully tonight we get a great game because Super League is on life support if last nights effort is anything to go by!

Wouldn't worry too much. There's always been sh_it games and there always will be. Thankfully most don't live long in the memory.

A very poignant example of what emerged from the WCC - the Aussies careful not to make careless mistakes as it usually costs them - last night the Giants struggled to complete a set yet the Tigers were unable to capitalise. Good job neither of those sides were playing an NRL side - it would have been carnage.

IF Zak has done something wrong, and we all know what we're referring to there. IF he has, he still won't get the sack. Not a chance in hell. Way too talented.

IF he is involved in this alleged incident, I think you might be wrong there. I actually think any action would be mutual aswell.

He was affected by that second incident last season against Saints, and seriously questioned giving the game up, and then whether he should just move to Australia. Therefore if there is another incident, and IF involved his own making, I think there would be a change. I did wonder why his agreed 5 year deal hadn't been announced yet, and wonder if there is some doubts.

Funny though, as I actually messaged Gary Hetherington only a few weeks back and told him that I don't think the club are doing a good thing by encouraging some of these players to live together, and that it could prove bad news for a couple of players. I cited the same situation previously with Bailey and Delaney. Gary didn't agree, but I still think the club are not helping, not all players have the same attitudes, way of living, and life goals.

"I did wonder why his agreed 5 year deal hadn't been announced yet, and wonder if there is some doubts." Maybe one was never signed in the first place? The only place I ever heard of it was you saying it on here.

Does Gary really think the club can tell the players what their living arrangements should be? Why do you think the club have any influence or input on a player's choice of housemate? Bizarre.

At the end of the day players of Zak's age are grown men and need to sort themselves out. My boss has no input or responsibility over my personal choices.

Besides, the Burgess brothers lived together and because they're not wooden tops they did OK.

Who does Zak share a house with Gotcha?
And FWIW I think we could see the last of Zak IF rumours this time are correct.