I have just got the "News from Hull FC" email, in which they state that some players are coming back from injury etc. It also states that Gleeson is on compassionate leave.

If he is, as I am led to believe, suffering some genuine mental issues then I hope the club are supporting him all they can, BUT, having said that, surely he should now be on SSP and not a lot more, we cannot be sentimental. As far as we know next seasons contract has been weighted to get him under this seasons cap, we cannot continue much longer not knowing if he is to play for us next season.

It's a different situation in professional RL to most business, having a staff member on the payroll and unable to work is a cost to any business, but in a business with squads and a strict salary cap can we really, in the cold light of day, continue to carry him?

Now, I know some people will post that we should never have signed him, and I agree, but I am not getting into that, at what point do we say "enough is enough" and put the interests of Hull FC before the individual, ANY individual.

or am I being harsh and unsympathetic?

No, you are just being realistic, think we should release him at the end of this season, like the Long signing, it was a gamble that didnt pay off, the guy has way too much baggage.
Signing a centre for next season as well as a prop has to be high on our priorities.

What is SSP?

Statutory Sick Pay?

Statutory Sick Pay

Cheers.

My view is that we should pay up his contract for next season (before a game is played so that the payment doesn't count on the cap) and replace him. I was extremely sceptical about the signing in the first place and it has been shown to be a mistake. That said, the club entered into a contract with him, and they should honour that by paying him up.

I totally understand the sentiment, however, if it were you or I would an employer go to such expense and pay us a year in advance, he cannot meet the terms and conditions of his contract, therefore why [ishould[/i we pay him up?

Wouldn't that then count on this years cap?

The deal should have been done so that we could release him if he was not upto contract obligations etc .

Can't see him playing for us again though

I don't think so. I feel sure I read somewhere that if a player is paid off between seasons it doesn't count on either season's cap. Or I could just be making it all up...

Presumably because of the terms & conditions of his contract?

Or should we just ignore any such thing?

Because we entered into a contract with him knowing that this was a possible (likely?) outcome. Also, if the guy had a physical illness (MS, Parkinson's, whatever) would you be calling for his contract to be terminated without any compensation?

Not if it's in the T&C's of his contract, of course not, but would you not agree that we've been bloody naieve if we don't have clauses in our favour to the same extent as players have them in theirs?

I see where you're coming from - but what if he had a debilitating physical illness? If it was permanent, then I guess it'd be up to the insurers - but couldn't this be looked at like Richard Moore coming to terms with Crohn's or Horne with his diabetes?




Don't think so - see Warrington paying off Hicks. It has to be reviewed (supposedly) to avoid clubs deliberately providing a golden handshake outside the cap, but that clearly wouldn't be an issue.

what would happen to you in your employment, would you employer pay you up x thousand pounds? What if we pay him off and he suddenly recovers and plays for Widnes, do we get recompense?

Leave it. Something will be mentioned soon.

"leave it", no, sorry, there is no reason we should leave it, it's a perfectly valid discussion and nobody is being discourteous or disrespectful of Gleeson, we are simply discussing the complete double standards that operate between the average employee and sports persons.

Depending on the terms of your contract, you'd get a certain amount of time on full pay, perhaps some on half pay, before reverting to SSP. You wouldn't get the sack for being ill (unless your employer wanted a few days in court). But then, it's kind of irrelevant what happens in normal employment because professional sportsmen are not employed in the same way as postmen, teachers or cleaners.

you would lose your job eventually, under capability.

Eventually.

In fact, iirc, we could technically have terminated Chev Walker's contract at the back end of last year (but he was ooc anyway). I [uthink[/u Bradford did with Danny Sculthorpe.

Perhaps, but not within the time scales you are suggesting, and not necessarily for something like depression unless it's diagnosed as being 'long term'. The fact is, we entered into this contract knowing that there was a very real risk that Gleeson wouldn't be able to play at some point because of the problems he's had. We took a risk (wrongly, in my view) and should have to face the consequences of that risk. Entering into a contract with a player and then binning him without compensation at the first sign of trouble is hardly ethical.

I don't disagree on the ethical front, but how ethical are players when the tables are reversed, not very, in the main.

I'm not quite sure how the 'tables' could be 'reversed' in this situation.

Even if they could, is it right that, because some players behave in an unethical manner, our club should do the same?

lets just keep paying players not to do the job for which they were employed, a sure fire way to a top 4 finish.