Daily mail (fail) backpage splash tomorrow, it's a done deal, £500k fee + one of the highest earners in Rugby.
Tapped up by the gobe Andy Farrell.

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... plans.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... plans.html

It seemed credible up until they said the fee was £500k. Not a chance in hell that they would sell him for that.

The fee is probalby only compensation for the remainder of his contract and a gesture seeing as he's moving sports rather than clubs.

It wouldn't drive him to make the move but it might be a small factor, he moves and there is more than likely more game time for his brothers.

Very disappointed, Farrell the snake.

Must be going for peanuts if the club signing him are to stay under the cap. The good performance against SBW must have gone to his head, he'll be trying his hand at boxing next.

The fee isn't paid to him, it's paid to souths, who are, all told loaded. Hence 500k seems suspiously small to convince them to sell.

This is straight out of your Rah Rah party manual, right?

I know, the point is he's moving sports, he could just walk away from his contract and Souths would have to pursue him for breach of contract, there is no framework whereby they could pursue his new club.

Yes there is, if that were true, contracts would be even more meaningless than they are already in sport. Any new club/ company would be liable for any settlement the souths demanded, regardless of what sport they played. If they refused, souths would take it court and will either use sam personally for the price deemed a suitable transfer price for him (which his new team will ultimately be responsible for), or he is put in jail for breach of contract.

In that scenario it's similar to the breach of contract Harris was guilty of when he signed for Bradford. How well did that go for bradford?

The only way he could use your argument is if he told souths he was desperately unhappy ...

Edit: I'm not denying this now seems an eminent possibility I'm just saying for 500,000 I'd of chipped in at saints for the signature!

What framework is there for the NRL/South Sydney to pursue this, are they going to ask the RFL to ban him from playing Rugby Union?

They can pursue the player for breach of contract, i've always stated that, but they can't stop him earning a living if he's no longer playing Rugby League.

I find it hard to see how they could pursue this with Bath, Leicester or whoever. How would that work?

Because of the difficulties it's easier for them to accept an offer of compensation that relates to the remainder of his contract.

In England Breach of Contract is a civil matter and not one that would get the defendant sent to prison.

They don't need to stop him playing union. In the worst case scenario (for burgess and the rfu) if they convinced him to walk out of his contract without souths agreeing a fee for it, then souths can go to town in the courts. He would be liable for the perceived value souths felt that had lost due to his breach: prize money, sponsorships, attendences they could easily go for the $5-10mill range (very ambitious but that's what you do in this case) - either the rfu can pay it for him - and souths get far more than the £500,000 - or they refuse to pay that - in which case they can get burgess sent back to aus, for ignoring a court order, which is a criminal case and he can be incarcerated for.

It seems like it's happening, but the numbers quoted baffle me. It's not even like bath have loads of cap space free so they can pay him a tonne - I just don't get it

Sonny Bill Williams left Canterbury with 4 years on his deal to run, he had to pay $750,000. Sam's got 2 years left.

Without a international game of note this will always happen.

A) I never mentioned enticement. The only reason the rfu would be in any way liable would be to help their new player.

B) so between 2008 and now, after signing a billion dollar deal and raising their salary cap several times, a marquee player is only roughly £100k more?? Here was me thinking were struggling to keep up with the clubs.

C) the breach would be to the value of the remains of the contract if it were souths who breached the contract. Defining the value of your work is a lot harder to define. That's why there are employment tribunals. That's why in a worst case for Sam I'd suggest they should milk it for all it's worth, just as Leeds did with Harris. Admittedly I plucked a figure out of thin air, but only for the purposes of Sam is worth more to a team than that!

Russell Crowe has pumped millions upon millions into the club, what's 500,000 for selling a star player?

Souths have sent an members email saying they've had no contact from anyone about Sam.

A) doesn't "if they persuaded him to walk out of his contract" amount to enticement?

B) Well contrary to what you believe if the fee is to be a meagre £500,000 and Sam is earning so much more that would kind of prove my case that South's are in a very weak bargaining position and there is nowhere worthwhile to take this, if you are correct of course the fee will be so much higher than half a million.

C) How many tribunal cases are you aware of where the company get or even seeks significant amounts of redress from their employee for breach of contract? Leeds and Harris is a little bit different given it was found that Bradford did encourage Harris to break his contract with Leeds and that Leeds and Bradford are in the same country and under the same legal system.