I still think Ben Cross was worse. Admittedly he wouldn’t have been on the money Tetevano is.

Mitch Achurch was the worst…..there’s a good player somewhere in TeT, just not sure we’ll see it

All opinions but there were games when Merrin ran his blood to water, and made some key contributions to keeping us up in games like Cas away.

Achurch had a decent run where he won a couple of MOM as I recall, until he got injured (again)

I've never seen Tet do anything remotely half decent.

Add to this Tet will be on at least double what Achurch was.

Understand Bentley made over 60 tackles , he missed 9 but Is often trying desperately to get out and nail players early.

With better round him I reckon he’ll get better and better in the next few years.

Mitch didn't cost a fortune.

He will and Smith will know this.

If we're not trying to work on a deal to release Tetevano behind the scenes, then we really should be.

Hull have recently done similar with Reynolds (on Marquee) and now Wire with Toby King (also on big money)

Over to you Gary.

What happens if we sack Tetevano, does he still have to be paid off?

The concern is who in either the NRL or SL would want him. He has been absolutely awful.

jI don't think we have any grounds to sack him.We can't pay him off as that would count towards the cap.

You may find he is on more than five times the money Achurch was on

For employees with less than 2 years service you don't need a reason.

These players are on standard RFL fixed term contracts, they aren't employees of businesses with open-ended contracts of employment in the way most of us probably are. If you want to get rid, except for some exceptional circumstances (of which playing badly is not one), you have to come to a settlement with them.

He's contracted for next season surely we have a legal duty to has to be honoured.

The two years is certainly a thing for regular contracted employees, you can be let go at any point within that 2 years without reason and without recourse. You do have to receive your notice period pay. I don't know of any reason that this wouldn't apply to sporting contracts, however the notice period pay may be the entire contract value. Depends how the contract is written I suppose.

I'd like to state that I personally wouldn't do this (to anyone) but know it happens.

So as others have said you are confusing a fixed term contract with a permanent contract of employment. A fixed term contract is essentially a purchase of goods for a defined price. In the case of Rugby players, the fixed term contract will have a sum total and an agreed payment time table (aka the salary, with any bonuses or changes etc) in exchange for being available to play for the team in question. The contract may stipulate certain health factors (reaching periodic fitness regimes, dietary regimes, rehabilitation terms for injuries) or anything at all really - the key is that the terms are at the discretion of the purchasing party and not limited by protected characteristics (which is why a player could be sacked for returning from the off season 20stone heavier, but you couldn't do that in a permanent job of employment). How widely used these rules are, I have no idea. If one party wants to terminate the fixed term contract before running to completion, the full value of the contract is due. The value of the contract is easy to calculate, as its defined in monetary terms for the player.

If Leeds wanted to terminate the contract with Tetevano, they are well within their rights to do so. However, they would owe Tetevano the full value of his contract and thus need to include a pay off equivalent to the final years salary. The key is "equivalent" though, as often a penny today is worth a pound tomorrow, and if Leeds let him go at a time where he could sign a new contract, the pay off may not be the full sum. Whatever payoff they did give however would be included in cap calculations.

There is a reputational factor to consider in enforcing this though. Terminating a contract because the player isnt playing well isnt a great look, and may do more long term damage reputationally than is gained short term by removing them.

Just as an O/T point, you can't just "be let go at any point within that 2 years without reason and without recourse". Within the first two years, employees have no right to employment tribunal, which is the most usual method protecting employees rights to reasonable protection to long term employment. However, if the employer acts in an illegal or immoral way in sacking people, employees can still enforce their rights through the courts. Civil Courts don't have the right to enforce organisations to rehire people like employment tribunals do but can still cost the employer for a range of things, including emotional distress, cost of relocation, continued salary until a new job was found etc. Its a lot more costly to do this however, and thus much less common. This is why most employment contracts also include probation periods as well, which is another degree of protection for employers should they terminate early.

Thanks for the clarifications MS, very helpful stuff. Looks like unless we send Zane to the same burger joint that Konnie used to go to when he was at Leeds then we're not going to be able to fire him.

I still see a deal where he goes home at the end of the year, as that must be preferable to spending a year in the stands and his future market value being reduced week on week.

Interesting that Smith comment was simply to say that he's contracted. Nothing about any value to the side.

Need to manage him out. Drop him for rest of season. make him want to force a move home.

Interesting going back to the first page of this thread (which I did by accident!)





Seems like maybe there is more to Saints success than never having injuries - 5/6 players out, Lomax with one arm, Grace only just back having missed pretty much the whole season to date. Still a 40 odd point win and 4 points clear at the top. Couple of big games against Catalans and Wigan to come which will be very interesting.

I think people often underplay the missing players we have and think we are constantly 100% fit because the squad management has been strong (Hurrell/Bell/Lussick have been important signings this season, the long term play/investment in Dan Norman is starting to pay-off) and the youngsters (Bennison, Davies, Wingfield being the beneficiaries this year) come in and largely cover strongly. Last season we lost our first choice scrum half in the first half at Wembley for the rest of the season but people still think we had a perfect time of it.

We've had a big game loss this year when we risked Lomax too early with his injury and made a mistake playing Davies in the halves rather than Welsby - so obviously these things have an impact. But even then we were the better side and threw it away with an unnecessary intercept pass by a one armed player when we were basically cruising - the game should have been in the bag irrespective of the issues.

It is clear the team is very well conditioned and the quality of the replacements based on wider squad strength is the difference IMO, not some perceived multi-year run of good luck. It can't be coincidental that the best conditioned teams over the long term seem to keep more players fit and perform better on the pitch than the more poorly conditioned teams.

Much of saints success is built on their front row and outside backs early in the sets, accepting Grace has been injured theres still been strike and ability to win those early tackles and make meters. As I said before the game It really didn't matter the players saints were missing because they werent missing in the key area leeds are weakest.

Saints have built some good depth and recruited well, much to admire about what theyve done. We could do with a few more like them in our game.

Notice that Tom Grant has been dropped at least for his ineptitude.

well deserved

I understand why we feel like this.... However all refs need to learn how to do it......we all need to start somewhere

League 1?