The most telling line from the YEP article r.e. Burgess is...

[i"We have always known he is ambitious to go to the NRL next year, we have absolutely no problem with that, he would leave with our best wishes. He made plain his desire to go to Australia, so we have always been planning to be without him in the longer-term."[/i

Seems pretty simple to me. If this is the "transition year" we've been constantly saying is happening, then we're transitioning to life without Burgess. Simples.

Shall we all collect our tears and ship them to Norfolk?

Was the transition supposed to be in personel or in style?

The days of watching Kirke as a Leeds prop and Burgess out on loan can't come soon enough.

Is Burgess better than Kirke? Yes.

Is Burgess staying at the club? No.

Should we be investing time, money, resources and energy into helping Burgess improve? No.

Kear wants Burgess. www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... _1_3487577

Kear wants Burgess. www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/sport ... _1_3487577

Fine by me. It's basic business... if an employee hands in their notice then it is highly likely that their heart and mind will be elsewhere.

You do not;
i) Give them any important jobs to do.
ii) Heap any expectation on them to deliver.
iii) Spend any time or money developing their skills.

You do;
i) Prevent them from being around other, more settled, colleagues.
ii) Remove any level of responsibility.
iii) Allow them to leave at the earliest possible opportunity.

Burgess effectively handed his notice in. It's as simple as that.

Should we be using the contracted talents of a young impressive forward to improve our team's chances in this years SL?........YES

Should we be cutting our noses off to spite our faces, simply because he has expressed a desire to play down under?.......NO

Mate, this years Super League has long gone! And if, by some fluke, we do well in the play-offs/CC I very much doubt Burgess would've been the contributing fact to that.

We need to start building for the future, with players that want to be involved in that future.

That if they don't perform, they'll be out the door? Unlike those who do?

Agreed, the SL looks very much a lost cause, but the CC is still on the cards. But you don't help the cause by letting a very good and improved young player take up a spot at a potential rival, without having a better replacement in the offing. Perhaps GH has, and we will all be applauding his fine business acumen. Until then, for me at least, there's a question mark over his current asset/man management skills.

In Burgess's case I would disagree about his level of commitment. He's shown some good form this year, and is desperate to be in the shop window if he's going to get a gig in the NFL. He is going to be performing right up to the day he signs on that contract, and I would rather it was for us than anyone else.

Promoting young players is fine by me. If there good enough...they're old enough! So far though, that's more aspirational than reality at HQ.

Anyone watch SOO yesterday - maybe the future is smaller more mobile forwards - not big lumbering lads?

having said that Matt Scott looked pretty good yesterday?

That Eamonn McManus fellow over the hill is not much of a business man then is he?

why was Cross singed anyway ?

If by doing that it increases the chances of the team to improve - Yes

Did we stop working with Gareth Ellis when he said he was off to the NRL - No - did it bring results yes I think we won the GF in his last year!!!

So did Gareth Ellis - didn't see you spewing out this bile at the time?

You never know when your paths might cross again - no need to create enemies needlessly - basic business!!