would explain herbert but wasnt finnigan added to site when he joined 1st team squad last year?

I don't think he was ever actually added. Pretty sure I checked late in the season and he still wasn't there.

fair enough. sure it will be corrected in next few days. And while there at it they can Orford Off there!

your more forgiving than me obviously I was thinking more along lines off a steaming pile off bullshat.

From all reports he was absolutely outstanding against the Aussies and one of the main reasons England came from behind to beat them, well done.

whats the latest on george signing for souths on a 1 year loan deal, seemed in the aussie press that its a done deal with quotes coming from the club comfirming it. would be a great move for him, would learn so much and would develop his game, havent read previous posts

I'd hope it's a loan deal, but I think it's more likely a permanent one from what Connor Murphy has written recently.

Its a permanent deal, 20k plus add ons...could rise to 50k and beyond within a couple of years if he progresses.

Loan deal was reportedly rejected by the board in favor of permanent deal.

Well if George wants to be with his Brother in Aus (and who can blame him) then I can see the sense in going for a permanent transfer. Glad to hear that we have some clauses in places for extra payments if he makes it to the top flight. I'd would have liked to see him fight for a 1st team spot at the Bulls, but I'd rather support the young players who see their immediate future at the club.

As I said, is the only way to pay for potential.

Assuming this is all true (and I have reason to believe it is), I'm glad that the sensible option has prevailed.

I've said for a while that I didn't see how a 1-year loan deal benefitted the Bulls. It seems very clear to me that George wants to go there permanently if he can, so it would be utterly pointless us loaning him, when we're only likely to get him back for a year at best (and more likely not even that).

Getting a transfer fee now, with potentially more if he makes it good, as well as not having to pay his wages while he's still only "potential" and not having to waste time on someone who obviously doesn't want to be here. All in our favour I'd say.

While I'm not happy about another promising young player buggering off, I think the deal is very much in our best interests considering what he clearly wants.

On the other side, I think Tom has shown that he wants to play for Bradford. The rumour was that both of them had offers on the table, but Tom chose to stay here. I'd much rather have a player who wants to be here than one who perhaps has more potential, but wants to be elsewhere. Playing at different clubs may also finally enable the twins to form their own individual name, rather than always being referred to together, which I'm sure drives them mental.

I spoke to Tom Burgess yesterday at the England v Aus academy game and he confirmed that George was going to Australia.

George was outstanding and for me was m.om in Englands 38 - 30 win, although he was lucky to get away with an elbow / forearm to the throat of an Aussie player whilst running the ball out.
England got the penalty and went upfield to score.

I think a loan deal could have been an option that benefited the Bulls but not in the circumstances above. If for example he saw a future for himself at the Bulls then I think a year in Aus before returning to the Bulls would have been good for us. Obviously a new longer deal would need to be agreed for that to work for both parties. However it would seem that perhaps George sees his long term future over in Aus so in those circumstances we would be absolutely right to let him go sooner rather than later.