Lots of names & examples.

I just don't think we would get parity on this deal.

Either a player of similar ability to burgess who would want a bit more wages than burgess - or similar wages but bit less talented.

The only caveat is Burgess has not quite hit the heights this season for whatever reason. A more consistent player would be good for us in a creative position. And going to Aus early might allow Sam to realise his potential fully (bit like Peacock, just not that early)

And in the future, when Sam was ready to return, he would be a better player, we would be in a better position (please!), with the OSV up & running and Sam would still have a strong pull towards this club - who so graciously allowed him to realise his dream early, which might sway contract decisions in the future

Hate to say this...but rather like Iestyn?

If/When Burgess goes I think he would be at Morley's age when he came back.

I was alluding to nearly identical contract offers ([isway[/i) - emotional tie might break the deadlock of 2 close contract offers.

Once the contract offers are 10's of thousands of pounds apart per year - it is a no brainer really.

In that case why dont we just swap him for one of them?

Then he has to play against us, and he would be worth both of them put toghether in super league.

So what, he's not playing for us, so it doesnt matter.

If you had a desire to go and live and work in Australia would you be satisfied to end up in Wakefield or Salford?

Shouldn't have signed a contract with us then should he?

Because he wants to go to Australia not another SL club?

It seems to be widely reported that Burgess has a NRL get out clause in his contract for 2010. So whether we like it or not he'll more than likely be off to the NRL in a year. So it is very likely he will go in a year and we will receive nothing in way of compensation for him. I think we'd have to seriously consider a 200k offer or a player exchange deal if the terms suited us.

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 58,00.html

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 58,00.html

It often puzzles me how so many supporters expect far higher standards of moral and ethical conduct from players than they would of other people, or often themselves. What would you do in his position?

I defy almost anyone to truthfully deny that, if they were in Sam's position, they would not seek to do as he is?

I'm extremely envious. If somebody offered me a job in Oz today I'd be over there in a flash.

I am certain Sam can earn a lot more money over here despite favourable rates in Aus right now, so it's ambition more than financially motivated. I would expect him to stay 3-4 years and then look to land a big deal back in SL. By that time we could well have one or both of his twin brothers established in our side and that would no doubt be a lure for him. It's a gamble but if the right deal comes away this year I think we should accept it and just maybe we might have the pleasure of Sam in a Bulls shirt once again. Hopefully in a shiny new stadium..

Honour my contract and I wouldn't sign a contract If I had no intention of keeping it.

If Burgess leaves mid contract whilst he knows we are struggling for quality then he should be never welcomed back at this club.

When has Burgess stated he does not intend sticking to the terms of his contract?

I never said he did, I was answering Adey's question.

Neither would I, as it happens. But has anyone suggested that was Sam's intention when signing? And would you sign a contract believing that you would see it through if nothing better came up, but if an opportunity to pursue a career option you really wanted presented itself you would see if you could agree an exit from it? I would, and I'm too bloody honourable for my own good!



After all, that is precisely what many people do when they take a job and with a sizeable notice period - and when they try and negotiate early release when they subsequently get a better offer.

And anyway, it almost certainly won't have been Sam ringing up NRL clubs saying gizza job if I can get out of my contract, or Sam answering the phone to NRL clubs asking him if and how he could get out of his contract. You need to look to his agent for that.

But surely the real issue is whether we should consider striking a deal if a good enough offer comes in before 2010. If an offer came in that would benefit the Bulls sufficiently, would you expect the club to turn it down so we could keep Burgess for another season and then lose him with no compensation?

This is the just the way of things in modern professional sport.

I feel sure that when Sam signed his contract he had every intention of sticking to it, and then going to Australia. The fact that there is a clause in it giving him the chance to go to Oz a year early indicates that was at least in his mind.

But you are getting a load of Aussie clubs bending his agent's ear - inevitably that filters down to Sam himself. Or he can just read it in the papers! What is he to do? His head is inevitably being turned by all the attention and hype, and I think we are seeing results of that with some - let's be honest - mediocre performances on the field this season.

Yes, you can insist that he stays until the very last day of his contract. But what's the point? We will not got a penny in compensation or fee, and have a player who might be demotivated.

It's not like we are Chelsea or Man City where - to coin the phrase - you can tell a player that 'he can rot in the reserves'

theres a pretty fundamental problem with all this. NRL clubs very rarely pay transfer fees. If its true that we've signed kearney and millard for next year then we have no quota spots left so a player swap isnt an option.

On the other hand if we could get an NRL club to shell out 200k+ as a transfer fee then I'd be tempted as that money would allow us to pay transfer fee/fees to strengthen our backline with british players which is where we are weak. taking burgess out of our pack wouldnt significantly weaken it (given we'll be adding hall and menzies will be playing their next year and not stuck in the )but 200k available for transfers could make a big difference to our backline.

£200k is peanuts. £200k plus a few players - yes ok. I'm sorry I don't subscribe to this "Aussie clubs don't pay transfer fees" business. Are we supposed to be grateful then that they are making an exception? Tough s***. If they want him, then pay up. And his true value too.
(If Fielden = £440k then Burgess is what - a million?)

problem is we dont have the quota spots to accomodate a couple of oz players. and dont take the fielden money as market value we only got that much because of situation wigan were in at time, 200-250k is typical transfer fee for a top player.

who you gonna buy thorman and bailey
burgess is worth much more then 200k end of hes only going to be 21 next season aswell 500k+ i agree

Don't even joke about it, it's extremely possible...