it doesn't from what i hear

I tweeted Peter smith earlier this evening asking if he thought Zak's future was with us his reply " I think so, have a look at Brian macs comments tomorrow "

I pointed this out previously that Zak is behind a significant number of earners at Leeds and is he is demanding a higher salary someone in the higher brackets would need to leave. I think its pretty common knowledge that GH works a set system to stay in the salary cap, having say 5 tiers of contracts and a maximum number of players on each. Once he is top heavy or has longer term commitments he would have less to play with if Zak and others are coming for significant higher expectations ahead of time. A transfer request may will be the only way that Zak can currently improve his contract......if so it would stink a bit and look pure greed, after Leeds bringing him through so well from Championship....GH would need to try and strike a deal to improve next year with the more older players oving on or taking a cheaper extension on contract. if its not workable then lets see if we can get a decent fee and move on....end of the day it is a business and ends need to meet.

One of the old England football managers described Paul gascoigne as having "refuelling" issues.

The smart money seems to be on that

Maybe the days when GH was able to get players to take less money for the glory of playing for Leeds is over? With an ageing team - especially the key players - the others see a less successful time ahead. With the likes of Warrington and Salford prepared to pay above the odds maybe some players' heads have been turned especially when they discuss pay at international get togethers.

As has been discussed here I read somewhere GH talking about the pay structure which IIRC was based on international recognition at the top. If this is the case then the likes of Hardaker would be well within their rights to suggest they should be earning what a Burrow or JJB is earning?

josh charnley has just had a bumper pay rise and got a range rover

It doesn't stink of greed at all. it is a short career, and if it is Leeds that have put the bars in place for earnings, then it is them that has to live with the consequences of that.

Other than Sinfield and Peacock, Hardaker should be the one name at the club that they should try and do everything possible to retain. And I don't for one minute think Peacock will be in the higher payment bracket anymore. If one of the higher earners has to leave to accomodate Hardaker fitting in to Leeds own salary structure, then so be it, as far as I am concerned.

I'm not sure how leaving the England squad and then leaving Leeds adds up but is there a chance that in his Leeds deal there is a clause that he will be on a better contract once he has reached a certain amount on internationals. He isn't getting the games so took the a bit with the England squad. But he still feels he should get a better contract so starts sulking with Leeds?

All the suggestions I've been given are that his personal issues are nothing to do with his contract at Leeds. Unless he needs relief from the stress of said contract.

This

I said as much in an earlier thread....the danger signs are there. The club seems more interested in hanging onto past glories in the shape of the older incumbents at the expense of the younger better future of the club.

Kearney is not a bad player, but would be another step backwards (Aiton is the first - Leeds looking more and more like an average SL team).

Losing Hardaker would be a heavy blow, whilst we still have McGuire, Bailey, Lleulai, Kirke et all

The latest goss about Zak is...

He was out and about (in bars) and got caught up in a brawl with another Rugby player from the Championship. I dont know who. Zak got a considerable beating leaving his face not ideal for TV viewing.

Simple as that

Still be an improvement on Westwood!