While I'm at it, Bradford's accounts up to 2008 were recently mailed to shareholders. I wonder if one of them might be able to put on here how much the Bulls were spending each year on youth development. Then we can compare it to Orford's salary.

I see your point, but from a club perspective, their primary consideration is whether they get to stay in SL and then whether they are capable of winning anything.

Every SL club will spend its full salary cap (or as near as damn it) on players' wages. If Bradford, for example, decided to not sign Orford and instead put his salary into youth development, they'd be left so far behind all the other SL clubs in the short term, and might not even be in SL by the time their investment in youth began to bear fruit.

The only way it would work is if every club was forced to spend a specific amount of their income on youth development. This may mean that salary caps need to be reduced to free up the cash.

Bradford's problems, at a time when the prevailing winds of news is generally bad and season tickets are going on sale.

Exactly! The SL grant should have to have a certan amount of it spent on Jnr development. If it means teams can't sign some over the hill Aussies on 200k contracts then so be it!

Did you also include the image rights, cars, pensions and other benefits elements of their packages? See the RFL Operational Rules - Salary Cap section 5.6 for full details. Did you audit all elements of their packages? Given that most of the statutory audit work is directed towards the balance sheet and not the P&L let alone the payroll.

And anyway, even assuming the figure quoted in the media is correct, he could be being paid at least in part in AUD. The currency the transfer fee from Souths for Burgess will likely have been denominated in. AUD 500k p.a. a year or so ago would have been just over £200k.

Also, even with what you have said you may have breached the rules of confidentiality. I would be far from impressed if I was your institute, your firm or your client. And that's speaking as someone who qualified 30 years ago.

But how much of the money raised for internationals goes to the clubs themselves? I'd bet not much if any.

So I ask again, what benefit does the current international setup offer to SL clubs?

Go get them from Companies House. They were filed end October, when due.

But you know full well such a figure does not appear in a set of statutory accounts.

One thing I can assure you of though - the Bulls are very heavily concentrating on youth development under McNamara and Hood. Probably as much as any club in the competition, I suspect. They have to, since otherwise you end up with a team of middling journeymen like had to be the case in the inherited situation after Caisley and Noble left, and after we had lost over half of the academy & home-grown.

Bulls have done pretty good in bring forwards through the ranks - we have two more Burgesses going full-time this coming season, for example, and it is likely the RAB supporters group will be sponsoring them - but less so in the backs and especially in the halves. This signing plugs a serious medium-term weakness until the club is hopefully able to develop the successor internally.

I also think you will find the Bulls will have one of the youngest teams in the competition next year, and e.g. fewer overseas players than Leeds for one.

People are concentrating on a headline figure quoted in the Aussie media, the accuracy or otherwise of which no-one is in a position to check. Maybe if they had access to the true gross value of some of the packages elsewhere they would be less surprised.

It has always been this way.

The clubs wanted 30 league games a year in the old days, surprise, surpirise we are just about back to that again.

The clubs are right behind ideas to strengthen the international squad... as long as it doesn't mean their players playing. (Note the number of injuries when it comes around to mid-season 'origin', games against france, etc).

The fact is that the game in this country just is not on the same footing as in AUS... they have their pick of athletes (like soccer here) on top of the best what would here be called Kolpacks (sp?). Yet they just convert them to AUS or NZ players when it suits them.

Bulls could not hold on to Burgess. He had a year left on his contract and made it clear he wanted to go to Oz ASAP. And he made it clear that there was no other British club he wanted to play for. What would you have done to retain him?

And you should be grateful - he will almost certainly develop further and faster in the NRL than in SL, to the benefit of England.

Oh...and it has been widely reported that Burgess took a pay CUT to move to Oz - because it was playing in Oz that was the draw, not just the money.

Burgii.

Burgessii, please!

I don't usually approve of SL clubs bringing in 30 + Aussies on pension top-up's, but given the situation at Bradford then I think it is very much a risk worth taking, even if he did have a poor 2009 in the NRL. If his heart is in it he'll still be a cut above the other 7's in Super League, the only worry is whether the rest of our backs are capable of benefiting from him.