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.

I'm sure there will be something in the contract, if he is not fit to play again I think he would decide to walk away anyway. I think the situation will become clear by the end of the season.