That was my initial thought when I read that.

I don't know what the current situation is between Zak and the club regarding his contract and a stay beyond 2016, but the club is right to make clear their high expectations on his behaviour. There are few clubs in the UK where an RL player can really achieve their potential and Leeds is undoubtedly one of those few. The club knows this and I suspect so does Zak. It then comes to do what sort of player Zak wants to be. If he wants to chase the money and live a lifestyle contrary to what the club expects, so be it.

If the club statement is true that Zak has actively asked for assistance, I'll happily give him the benefit of the doubt on that front.

GH will also be mindful of the infamous incident with Leeds United players all those years ago in City Square and all the bad publicity and how it was handled

I thought exactly the same reading that part, might be reading too much into the wording but it does make it sound like once it's up he's gone

There is a signed 5 year deal that was due to be announced just before all this happened. The wording of GH's statement does seem to hint that it may have been breached and can be torn up. I suspect the next few months will be a probationary period of sorts.

Is this accurate though? Was there actually a signed contract?

I applaud the club for putting out such a clear statement.
There may be other things that were said in addition but at least this should remove or reduce the level of speculation that would have ensued had the statement not been so specific.
WRT Hardaker's future whilst a move elsewhere may be financially attractive I believe that for his personal development he's far better staying with the Rhinos.
I can only imagine what could happen if he were to go to the NRL where there seems to be an even worse drinking culture (& worse) than over here.
It would be so easy for him to go off the rails.
I hope we can keep him at the Rhinos.

As has been alluded to before with the old guard leaving and have been a credit to the club the last thing we all want is a return to the old drinking culture days of the 80s .

Read the small print.... 'Up to 20 hours a week' - that's different from 'will complete 20 hours per week'.

Excellent work from the sleeve - we're seen to be coming down hard from the outside, do give out a fairly meaty punishment (1 months fine) to hopefully prevent a future incident, whilst still allowing wiggle room to not p*ss off one of our star players too much....

I don't want to go in too much detail, as I could get some people in bother. But yes, I was told this was accurate by an impeccable source.

It was accurate, you are correct, but not sure it was ever signed to be honest. It was agreed in August 2014, but then the issues with the RFL came up, and Hardaker started to question whether he wanted to play in Super League anymore. Not sure where it went from there, if the agreement was signed up or left to think about.

Not sure where some of you are coming from , to me it looks to open the way for a new contract and i fully expect a deal to be signed if not announced very shortly . Zak loves the club and the fans , he may have issues but as mentionioned before people can overcome them .

Exactly. If Hardaker was planning on leaving or the club indicated to him that they would be getting rid at the end of the current contract......then why agree to do these things?

Why do the 20 hours with the Rhinos Foundation?
Why go to anger management?
Why agree to a months fine?

Refuse them and they sack you, but if you were planning on heading to another club anyway then why not speed up the process and not commit to those things if a parting of the way was just around the corner anyways?

The statement reads Hardaker will do that 20 hours Rhinos Foundation/Marketing Department thing for the duration of his contract. As I see it that means his CURRENT contract......for arguments sake if he signs a new 5 year deal he won't be doing it then. Remember it didn't say "duration of his Leeds career".....just his contract.

I know what G1 means because we see plenty of people who don't change their ways despite being given numerous opportunities. The likes of Hock, Thackray etc.

But I don't think Hardaker is in that camp. I think he's still a young lad who has had fame thrust upon him very quickly. Within a couple of years he went from playing for Fev to being signed by Leeds, playing and winning a Grand Final, becoming a starter in the Leeds first 13, to being in the England squad.

That's a lot for a young lad to face. Plus I place his misdemeanours in the "daft/immature" category rather than "idiotic" category. I think with a bit of guidance and a bit of growing up he'll be fine.

Now I'm not excusing his past behaviour and ultimately it's down to him how he'll do. But I'm quietly confident he'll mature and come out of this phase.

I think you're right, except the 20 hours thing, where it actually says "up to 20 hours", which might as well mean nothing.

The club are doing their best to give Hardaker the opportunity to sort his life out. If he refuses to learn his lessons, I'd quite happily hold the door open for him.

That he was the "senior pro" involved in this incident is worrying. Hopefully the other four have been read the riot act and reminded what being a professional sportsman is all about, and that they need to pick their role models carefully.

RL Players are physically stronger than most members of the public and their Strength and fitness are the tools of their trade and tradesmen put away their tools once the work shift is done .even if they are not the aggressor they should not abuse their fitness .Zak is a great player to watch I hope he sorts himself out

I think the Club have handled this really well and tbh it looks from the outside that Zak has twigged that he needs a bit of guidance to get himself back on the straight and narrow off the pitch.
Obviously time will tell and i can see where G1 & co are coming from re-being a role model within the squad but i think it couldn't be any more clearer to Zak and the younger lads where this will end if they don't get in to line.
In terms of his contract i believe it's done it's just a case of the time when they choose to announce it now.

He has a choice really, there is a lad from the same neck of the woods, around the same age, a lad who went from zero to hero in a matter of months, got swept up in "the life" and all the trappings that kind of exposure and attention brings both good and bad, he too has really struggled with that pressure and even has a penchant for the crap tats similar to Hardaker. It's a slippery slope from be the boy done good, upandcoming next big thing to punching out a bloke dressed as Santa and struggling for consistency in a poor team.

It really is up to Zak, be disciplined, be pushed and be a great or carry on pishing his talent away down biggies on a Saturday night. TBF, he has asked for help and I expect it to be given. It's a short career, even shorter at the top, I fully expect him to finally sort himself out once and for all.

I agree that it's been handled very well. I know some fans of other teams inevitably think his punishment should be getting sacked, but reality is....that wouldn't be a punishment.

If we sacked him they'd be a queue of clubs lining up to offer him deals, both over here and some in Australia too probably. So his punishment for his indiscretions would possibly be that.....

- he's ended up at an NRL team playing in the premier league in his sport.
- more than likely on more money than he was at Leeds.
- improved his International chances because he's playing NRL weekly.
- spends his days on a beach in Australia.

Wouldn't exactly be a humbling lesson learnt bringing him down a peg or two.

Now I know anpther part of the argument is obviously how it effects the club. His indiscretions have put the clubs name in the press for all the wrong reasons, especially frustrating for a club who like to promote the role model aspect of their players such as Sinfield so the club will really hate that. However as much as image is important to the club they also want to be successful on the pitch and let's not be naive here......if he wasn't such a key first teamer he'd be gone by now. I think perhaps him admitting he has issues has helped him in terms of how the club have handled it, he hasn't been all Mario "why always me?" Ballotelli about things and perhaps shown the club there's JUST enough remorse/wanting to change in him that they think they can turn it around. And to be fair, if we are talking 5 years down the line where he's kept himself out of all trouble and become a very good professional (maybe even to the point that captaincy is in the running) then it's looks a great bit of PR in the long run for GH......"we look after our young individuals and support them when they mess up and help turn them into role models, would Zak have turned himself around if we didn't stick by him and support him?" etc.

Of course that is IF he keeps himself out of bother.....one more incident and regardless of his worth to the team then it'll be the last straw.

If Leeds sacked him he would be playing for the rest of the season on much reduced monies in Sl - none of the serious clubs would have the cap space and none of the poorer sides would have sufficient funds.

Unlikely many of the NRL clubs would take him at this stage of the season and slot him into the first team. He may be one of the best FB's in SL but in the NRL that would not be the case. Getting the sack would cost him significantly in the short term.

Think it depends how Zak takes another 'warning' and if he reads it as his last or is flippant enough to think that if something else occurs he would get another 'warning'.

He's a great player who I feel we're just scratching the surface on talent wise. cut the crap-lad and get on with your job.

Sincerely hope you're right and my cynicism is misplaced.

One of my brother-in-laws was a professional boxer (fought at middleweight in the same era as Herol Graham), his coach at the gym took him from being a young kid who needed a direction for his aggression to a professional boxer who earned a living for a couple of years at the sport and during the whole of that time the one message that was hammered through their skulls was that you are being taught some lethal lessons which simply don't get used outside of the ring, if he'd got into a fight on a Friday night out he'd have been sacked, simple as that.

After his fighting career he worked on and off on the doors of clubs and still never used his fists, even getting stabbed twice by "customers" and you'll find this very often with ex-pro boxers, they don't like to talk about their careers, aren't openly aggressive and have a control mechanism that stops them getting involved in those stupid Friday night rucks, there is a philosophy about boxing (and other martial arts) that maybe needs to be taught to rugby players too.

As part of our pre season training we did a session with a former MMA world champ. He was the most mild mannered bloke you could ever meet. Because of that you knew deep down that he was hard as nails

the 99 team were encouraged to drink together post match for bonding

the 80s sides were part time in a different era

we haven't had a team of angels but players have been removed for behaviour

just hope zak finds the right balance