Just on the transfer fee issue, I can't see NRL clubs paying a fee.

Firstly, I don't see them paying a fee for pom with potential. Secondly, you tend to find that with players coming the other way the clubs allow the players to cancel their contract by mutual agreement. There may, if it happens, be some sort of player swap deal, if Bradford have the quota space.

The same story on rlSporting Life.rl

Except this one states he is..well read for yourselfwho is contracted to the Bulls to the end of 2011 but has an opt-out clause enabling him to fulfill his dream of playing in Australia at the end of next season.'"

As they are Leeds partner club, do you think (if Bradford dont get it in his contract) Leeds could be one of the first clubs to be on hand if he wants to come back to the UK?

on the bbc news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 226072.stm sorry if its already been posted

on the bbc news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 226072.stm sorry if its already been posted

i would imagine there will be a queue of clubs on hand if he wanted to come back.

I would like to imagine he'd be back at the bulls if he does come back at all but with the Burgess family playing at both clubs then there will always be speculation i guess.

The Aussie media are getting it all wrong, Burgess is contracted till the end of 2011.

They'd be damn stupid not to put a Iestyn clause in.

Technically yes, but if the opt out clause really is written in there somewhere, then effectively he is only contracted until 2010 as I'm sure he'll be putting it to good use.

Am I the only one slightly ed off at the way Crowe and Shane Richardson are mouthing off about how confident they are of signing him etc.?

Some of the quotes on the bbc article make them sound so arrogant it actually winds me up a little.

Burgess is a contracted Bulls player and unless we have given South Sydney permission to speak to Sam in this way (which I doubt) then isn't it a little bit immoral?

Stories like this crop up in football all the time, the Ashley Cole saga springs to mind, when he was caught having dinner with Peter Kenyon from Chelsea, and the press and Arsenal made a massive deal about it.

It's more or less the same situation here and yet nobody seems to give a sh*t about it.

Anyone else wondering where we'll be without our most marketable player?

I suppose if he wants away to Oz then we should send him with our best wishes but it leaves us without one of only crowd pleasers.

It isn't a "clause".

Its a separate agreement. Along the lines of, in summary, "...In consideration of club releasing player from his contract, player agrees that should he return to (League/UK/whatever) before x date, he will enter into a new playing contract with club (if club so wishes) on no worse terms than contract being released from, for a term equal to the unexpired period of original contract."

I'd not get excited about such an agreement, since if Sam does as well as folk expect him to then he'll not be back before such an agreement likely expires. Any longer agreement would likely be ruled to be in restraint of trade and therefore voidable. And anyway, little mileage in hacking off the player?

That's with the opt-out year removed. So he'll be here next year but gone for the year after.

Can't stop it happening. And if Sam can anyway up and off to Oz end 2010 (as the reports suggest) then you'd expect him to talk to people well in advance? The "permission to speak" rule is a rule between SL clubs. Will not apply to NRL clubs. And if you were working for a company and with a long notice period, and another prospective employer wanted to talk to you about your future career and how they could help you earn loads and fulfil a dream, how would you feel if that prospective employer was forbidden to talk to you (as can happen in certain situations)?

Unless someone makes Hood an offer he can't refuse...

I Just can't see an Aussie club paying, they may release a player on their books who fancies a move to the UK, but I can't see money changing hands, the Aussies just don't seem to work like that.

Me neither. Although Crowe out of his own pocket might be a different situation. Otherwise, some deal involving players would seem the only obvious solution - but that requires said players to want to cooperate?