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.

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

Why would an Aussie club folk out half a million quid for a 20 year old who might not even make it down under, be realistic 200k is enough or a player exchange.

Because he is worth it? If they don't want to pay, they don't have to have him.

How is he worth it, he might not even be able to hold his own in the nrl.

And then what do you do? Force Sam to do a year here when he could have been in Sydney? He'll be really motivated then, won't he? And who would be surprised if he ended up "picking" his games, and being "injured" a lot? Sam strikes me as a thoroughly honourable, decent, and very well brought up lad. But at the end of the day he is only human!

And you are falling into the trap of using the Fielden transfer as a benchmark. It was no such thing. It reflected a near-unique set of circumstances, at a time when the economic bubble "boom" was on, and a desperate buying club. None of those circumstances apply here.

Like any other asset, he's worth what the market is prepared to pay. Why would a club pay megabucks now, when all they have to do is wait and get him for free?

Because they want him now? Let them wait then.

I am sure that Sam will honour his contract and play to the very best of his ability is he stays for two more years. It will just increase his value when he goes. If he spends a year sulking then what will his new club think about his attitude? It won't do him any favours will it?