It's because we seem to be a inconvenience he could happily live with out if he could.

If that is the case then more should have been done to keep the lad happy at the club. Especially as he has only recently signed a new contract.

If he was SO happy to sign a new deal last year then what has changed and why? (not a direct question to you debaser)

Thats the feeling i got too which adds more fuel to the fire that the first team is now the second class citizen of the club.
But while Leeds were bringing through their juniors they were signing top players this is the major difference to us we seem to be expecting out the juniors to recover the glory days on their own.

Youv'e got your figures the wrong way round.

I disagree. If we end up getting a healthy sum for Sam then presumably we're going to spend some of that cash recruiting from other clubs. I think the fee could potentially be used by other clubs as an excuse to squeeze as much money out of us as possible.

Conversely if they have no idea as to how much we actually got then it would make the negotiations somewhat easier I reckon.

You must've gone on the football manager's negotiating course...

First tell everyone that you've got stacks of money...
then go around the market shopping and get the best deals

It is a fair point I accept but clubs are likely to have an inkling that we are not exactly only gonna get ten bob and new set of tracksuits for Mr Burgess aren't they?

Or are all other clubs gonna be slow on the uptake?

2002 Leeds imports - Tonie Carroll, Ben Walker, Willie Poching, Matt Adamson, Adrian Vowles.

2003 Leeds imports - Chris McKenna, Andrew Dunneman, David Furner, Willie Poching, Matt Adamson.

Ours for 2010 - Steve Menzies, Chris Nero, Glen Hall, Heath L'Strange.

Pretty comparable, perhaps with Leeds's 2003 imports shading ours.

Leeds had to go through some awful seasons before their youngsters came good but did they miss out on the play offs? (can't remember) I just hope ours prove to be as good as theirs were. If they aren't then we really are up poop creek

fixed. Although, I think you'll find the numbers are the correct way round.....Its just the symbols that should be t'other way....you get the point though.....[size=75hopefully[/size.

No they haven't. Since Leeds 10th place finish in 1996 the lowest they have finished is 5th in 1997 and 2001. So during Leeds so called awful seasons they never hit our lows. Thus didn't have as far to re-climb.

To put transfer fees into some kind of perspective, check out the deals for Myler, Gleeson and Atkins, all of whom have changed clubs for cash (plus Mathers in Gleeson's case).

Rarely do Aussie clubs stump up much cash for players (even in Australia), so lets hope you got a couple of established players in return.

'The final straw'? My first reaction was 'Oh, f.ck off', and do you know what, sometimes first reactions are right. Bradford Rugby Club, est 1863. Sam Burgess, est 1988.

The club is far better off without "supporters" who wouldn't come to games anymore because Sam Burgess isn't there anymore.

I'm not sure people should be criticised for wanting to see the strongest possible team put out and, while those who are only looking for reasons to complain are annoying, the strength of the club isn't only measured in the players but in the support staff, infrastructure (ground, training facilities) and interaction with the community all of which cost moneys which even the complainers put in.

Losing Burgess would only be a part of the jigsaw though, and, as I stated earlier, it would seriously devalue their "Building for the Future" line that is being used.

Selling Burgess would be an issue. Completely pulling the wool over the eyes of the fans who turn up at games is completely different.

[url=http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/Bradford-set-to-net-200000.5685794.jpDangerous Dave says £200k.[/url

For that kind of money I'd say no deal.

Wonder where they got that idea.



Meow.

200k + the first option on him + maintaining the club's relationship with him seems OKish to me. Better than one more season + 0k + he can come back to any SL club he wants.

See how Craven the Leeds fan is putting the boot in with assertions about the financial position and the like now he is no longer having to report on Bulls matches, and is instead free to report in favour of his beloved Leeds?

Wakner.

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/4652893.Hood__Price_must_be_right_for_Burgess/More in the T&A, FWIW[/url

Indeed.

Given the alternative is probably an unhappy player, with his future for 2011 assured and with a regular payday for 2010, who would hardly be motivated or minded to put his body on the line in 2010 and put that future at risk?

Although that will likely not cut any ice with those who say if thats the case we should play him in the (to-be-abolished) reserves to teach him a lesson, or those who (I suggest a tad näively) expect him to give his all for 2010 regardless?

To me, questions need asking about the role of his manager/agent, especially regarding how much Sam has been influenced by what he has been told/assured/promised (Hood's comments on the timing maybe being a bit premature for a young forward may be a hint at this).

And especially given, that last time I looked, said manager/agent owned 27% of the club.

Craven really is a t0sser isn't he?

There's no need whatsoever for that last line.


I was particularly interested by the line:



This is what people have been complaining about regarding the club not bothering to tell fans about things and instead just keeping it all quiet. It would be nice if Hood had said something along the lines of "If I had anything to say, I'd have told our fans first", even if it was just a line.

Indeed. Methinks he is giving the impression of getting his own back after - one presumes - getting into deep water over some of his recent T&A reports?



Fair comment. Although I suspect he'd find it more pressing to tell sponsors etc first?

Understand and broadly agree with that . . . . though, given shareholders, sponsors and fans all wanting to be treated as first amongst ("financial provider"icon_wink.gif equals, I suspect from Mr Hood's perspective could well be that whatever/ however it all gets brought out of the shadows, he's damned if he does / damned if he doesn't.