Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 5:39 am  

It wouldn't damage him in Sydney, which is where he'd end up and where his earnings outside the game could be huge. The story would be all about the return of the king. Nobody would care how he did for England.

Its also a tad hypocritical to take that attitude when Burgess has already walked away from a contract early, albeit at significant cost to Bath.

In the Guardian Bath's owner reckons he'll stay to the next WC, and that nobody has even contacted Bath about Burgess. He also says that Bath always saw Burgess as a forward - methinks an attempt to rewrite history there as Ford's comments (quoted when Sam signed) suggest they hadn't made up their mind where he'd play.

Mind you, Ford's quotes also show that whilst England may not have funded Sam's move to Bath, they wanted him fast-tracked if at all possible for the WC.

I continue to think he'll stay in RU.

Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:57 am  

He is alleged to have told the England RL dressing room he is not going back to RU. Suspect therefore he's suffering depression or more likely Bath are playing hard ball over the contract and won't release him or at least not easily. There are other factors - he has an Aussie girlfriend and family in Sydney. That must be another factor I would guess. If he did leave Bath they could easily agree a press release that he loved it but his girlfriend was home sick, etc. RU won't want to let him go without a fight as he's been a major political football in terms of getting RL supporters watching their WC and talking about it and shoeing they can take the best players from the NRL.

Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:29 am  

Dally wrote:

He is alleged to have told the England RL dressing room he is not going back to RU. Suspect therefore he's suffering depression

That's a bit of a leap. It reminds me of Time Team, they find a brooch and a rectangular building and declare it a Roman temple, later backtracking and deciding it was a farm building.

Nothing is clear in the Burgess situation. I think personally this whole 'will he won't he' stuff is just PR from Burgess's camp. They are trying to play the PR card and goad a RL side into making a stellar bid. No one has done that so far, so I guess he'll probably stay in Union.

Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:39 am  

I'd also be surprised if his contract at Bath didn't have some sort of loyalty bonus in it, which he'd be waving goodbye to if he actually asked for a move.

Much easier to wait until he has a definite destination lined up, then try to get the buyer to reach an agreement with Bath without him having to request a transfer.

Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:21 pm  

Dally wrote:

...in terms of getting RL supporters watching their WC

To be fair, I hardly think that was a big factor. The number of RL fans who watched games they otherwise wouldn't have done would be a drop in the ocean in their global audience.


Apparently the talk in Oz is, he's wanting $1.5m pa. How you fit that under a salary cap, God knows.

Have to say, I'm starting to get a bit fed up with the whole soap opera.

Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 1:28 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

:lol: That's a bit of a leap. It reminds me of Time Team, they find a brooch and a rectangular building and declare it a Roman temple, later backtracking and deciding it was a farm building.

Nothing is clear in the Burgess situation. I think personally this whole 'will he won't he' stuff is just PR from Burgess's camp. They are trying to play the PR card and goad a RL side into making a stellar bid. No one has done that so far, so I guess he'll probably stay in Union.

My gut feeling is that he wants to return to RL but Bath are sticking to their guns - the owners comments seem to suggest that. I think they'll release him if they get a stellar offer but I'd be surprised if any RL club could afford that. So, if Sam is set on going his only option may be to sit it out and refuse to play. After a while Bath would then no doubt sell to cut their losses. Can't see he'd do that though - not a great thing to do reputationally. If I recall it was alleged at the time that was what Martin Offiah did when he wanted to leave Widnes for Wigan. Obviously I am not sure what the truth was though.

Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:09 pm  

No statement from Sam must be annoying the hell out of the Union Media Spin Doctors, if I was him I would just carry on with normal business at Bath and make the media more rumour stupid than it already is.

Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:34 pm  

He's on $1.2 mill at bath and would demand a transfer fee so not a cheap option for any NRL club.

Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:59 pm  

Dally wrote:

My gut feeling is that he wants to return to RL but Bath are sticking to their guns - the owners comments seem to suggest that..

No. I'm guessing Sam's mind is made up and he's told his manager of the move to RL he wants.

The messages coming out of the Bath RU hierarchy are just an attempt to get as big a transfer fee as possible. But they didn't seem too bothered about the question of honouring contracts when Sam was tapped up and induced to leave South Sydney.

Sam is also being well advised. Turn up. Train. Say nothing publicly. Play if asked - all so contract is not breached.

Then you have Hetherington - also saying the right things but this time so as to minimise any transfer fee. I don't care how much money the Bath owner might have left, he won't be able to out-canny GH.

All means it takes time, especially if the deal has to cover the financial arrangements for Leeds for 2016 and Souths for 2017+.

But, as you see in soccer, if a player doesn't want to play for a particular club or if his heart isn't in it, they will always get the move in the end.

Will be glad when Sam is finally back in RL and we can get on with the game and leave the Union lot to get on with their own game.

Re: Sam Burgess : Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:33 pm  

Released from Bath Rugby with immediate effect, per BBC Sport