Sam Burgess retires

[Vic Mackey]

Is dropping the ball all the time a legit medical condition?

According to NRL Referees he never dropped the ball

 

[Jerkwad2000]

Hello mcfly, that’s when it happened. You clearly didn’t watch him play after the operation The fact he battled on doesn’t mean a thing. Medical retirement is deserved unless you’re a hater or a blind opposition fan.

So, he had that option at the time and chose not to take it. But also not retire then. He continued to play on for the season and played 14 more games. So how has that condition worsened since the end of the season?

You can't have it both ways. The fact he played on showed he could. Meaning a medical retirement should not be an option, as it is the same injury he played on with after.

I've no problem if he just retires. But nobody is walking away from 3m.

 

[nick87]

Well, when that time comes, it can be evaluated. It’s pretty easy to spot a fake injury you know.

As per this precedent, the broncos really only need a doctor to sign off on some long term debilitating injury and it's all good

Without knowing the particulars of his medical history, if he's had more than 2 major ops on any part of his body, he'll easily be able to get a doctor to say there is degenerative issues with that part of the body and that retirement is the recommendation

That's the problem with this. The injury Sam has doesnt prevent him from playing, it prevents him from being as effective and as good as he once was... all Darius needs a little arthritis in a knee/shoulder from a few ops and this precedent has the Broncos off the hook

and as i said, if im running a football club, im on the phone to NRL HQ and getting something in writing from them about this being the policy and the moment i have that, the entire way i structure contracts changes overnight.

 

[AJB1102]

I had a colleague get medically retired. She got a phone call to go to a meeting with HR, returned about 20 minutes later to collect her shit and GTFO. She had some disability that made her pretty weak but did her job fine, took a lot of sickies. Anyway routine medical and the doc said she was unfit so couldn't come back unless she got an opposing report from a specialist. I left a couple months later so dunno the end to that story. Guessing she didn't get $3M or a $300k p/a office job.

 

[BranVan3000]

Oh I dunno, maybe the other 15 clubs if Souths can throw him in the bin and buy a 19 year old gun to replace him without them having to dig into their cap too much, if at all.

That of course depends how Sam’s contract is Is paid out. With Toddles you never know. Will be interesting to see how this all unfolds.

The salary cap is there to ensure an equal footing on the field, not to place a burden on those in situations like this

You think having a million dollars unusable by a club because a player can’t continue is the fair outcome?

I’d much rather have a fit and firing Sam Burgess and GI than anybody we could recruit

 

[Canard]

Yet another Souffs leg up.

 

[Pommy]

So, he had that option at the time and chose not to take it. But also not retire then. He continued to play on for the season and played 14 more games. So how has that condition worsened since the end of the season?

You can't have it both ways. The fact he played on showed he could. Meaning a medical retirement should not be an option, as it is the same injury he played on with after.

I've no problem if he just retires. But nobody is walking away from 3m.

I guess it depends on what you define as career ending.
Sure he could play physically play on. Unless you’ve had your legs blown off pretty much everyone could play on. However if you’re left crippled due to playing on I would say it should be considered career ending.

 

[Peter Quinn]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...y/news-story/f4887902dbfb030e67e06e4fed432547

Souths want to pay him $3.6 million to retire and free up their salary cap.

Thoughts?

I can't see them not allowing them 3.6 off their cap. The fact is, the infection that came after surgery was out of everyone's view. It was ACCORDING TO MEDICAL REPORTS the infection that ate away most of the bone in the shoulder, leaving him just 25% of bone in that area. It was not the shoulder injury that forced the retirement, it was the infection.

 

[MilkShark]

As per this precedent, the broncos really only need a doctor to sign off on some long term debilitating injury and it's all good

Without knowing the particulars of his medical history, if he's had more than 2 major ops on any part of his body, he'll easily be able to get a doctor to say there is degenerative issues with that part of the body and that retirement is the recommendation

That's the problem with this. The injury Sam has doesnt prevent him from playing, it prevents him from being as effective and as good as he once was... all Darius needs a little arthritis in a knee/shoulder from a few ops and this precedent has the Broncos off the hook

and as i said, if im running a football club, im on the phone to NRL HQ and getting something in writing from them about this being the policy and the moment i have that, the entire way i structure contracts changes overnight.

Exactly.

And, he can still play, he did all year, he just isn’t worth what Souths agreed to pay him anymore. And so here we are.

 

[nick87]

You think having a million dollars unusable by a club because a player can’t continue is the fair outcome?

No, but that's the risk you take with a collision sport
What is grossly unfair is that the Rabbitohs will effectively have circumvented the salary cap, and been allowed to play their roster an extra 3.6mil over the course of Sam Burgess contract.

Which is the same scale, monetary wise as the Storm Cap Scandal (which was 3.8mil over about 5 years if i recall correctly)

 

[Wily Ole Dog]

So, he had that option at the time and chose not to take it. But also not retire then. He continued to play on for the season and played 14 more games. So how has that condition worsened since the end of the season?

You can't have it both ways. The fact he played on showed he could. Meaning a medical retirement should not be an option, as it is the same injury he played on with after.

I've no problem if he just retires. But nobody is walking away from 3m.

I’m going to be blunt, I’m afraid You clearly don’t know what your talking about.

Sam played round 13 then went in for the operation. He didn’t play again till round 20 against the Sharks.
Played round 22, 24 & 25 before the 2 play off games.
That’s 6 games not the 14 you contended

anyone who saw those games knew he was busted, Bennett even gave him limited game time

I suggest you get your facts right if you want to get involved in a discussion

 

[Chimp]

I can't see them not allowing them 3.6 off their cap. The fact is, the infection that came after surgery was out of everyone's view. It was ACCORDING TO MEDICAL REPORTS the infection that ate away most of the bone in the shoulder, leaving him just 25% of bone in that area. It was not the shoulder injury that forced the retirement, it was the infection.

Agree with this, though opposition fans could say that with him having multiple operations on that same shoulder since the age of 18, and the infection being a result of further surgery on that shoulder, this type of thing could certainly have been a realistic concern when they renewed his contract.
It's a real tough one to solve this - as having clubs with over $1m of cap sat in the stands retired obviously dilutes the talent out on the pitch, and as fans, we should all want to see the best players out there as often as possible, so you'd want clubs to be able to replace like for like when a player retires. The problem is, the clubs have proven time and time again that any ruling that can be used to rort the system will be mercilessly taken advantage of (HIA, non-penalising of 'not interfering with play' offside etc). This Policy will be rorted by either balloon payments via long term lower value contracts, or to move on a player who's no longer performing (Boyd). It directly contradicts the salary cap.

 

[myrrh ken]

I had a colleague get medically retired. She got a phone call to go to a meeting with HR, returned about 20 minutes later to collect her shit and GTFO. She had some disability that made her pretty weak but did her job fine, took a lot of sickies. Anyway routine medical and the doc said she was unfit so couldn't come back unless she got an opposing report from a specialist. I left a couple months later so dunno the end to that story. Guessing she didn't get $3M or a $300k p/a office job.

Did she sign a 4 year contract?

 

[Vic Mackey]

You think having a million dollars unusable by a club because a player can’t continue is the fair outcome?

Well the NRL seemed to think so for Manly and Parra, along with the Dogs reportedly trying it on with Kieran Foran.

Plus then there’s the Tigers who have been waiting over 2 months for an answer on Matulino, does anybody seriously think Souths will still be waiting for an answer after Christmas?

 

[redVinme]

I wouldn't care so much if this happened mid season and club had to scramble or wait until off season for a solution but 2 days before Nov 1. Souths are basically just laughing in everyone's face knowing they will have a younger fitter version in a week

 

[AJB1102]

Did she sign a 4 year contract?

6 and out in 3. Was all a rort.

 

[Peter Quinn]

Agree with this, though opposition fans could say that with him having multiple operations on that same shoulder since the age of 18, and the infection being a result of further surgery on that shoulder, this type of thing could certainly have been a realistic concern when they renewed his contract.
It's a real tough one to solve this - as having clubs with over $1m of cap sat in the stands retired obviously dilutes the talent out on the pitch, and as fans, we should all want to see the best players out there as often as possible, so you'd want clubs to be able to replace like for like when a player retires. The problem is, the clubs have proven time and time again that any ruling that can be used to rort the system will be mercilessly taken advantage of (HIA, non-penalising of 'not interfering with play' offside etc). This Policy will be rorted by either balloon payments via long term lower value contracts, or to move on a player who's no longer performing (Boyd). It directly contradicts the salary cap.

There's no doubt he injured his shoulder previously. But the fact the infection came after surgery, is the major and only reason Sam retired. He didn't retire after he hurt his shoulder again or even after surgery. He retired a few months later. It's a forgone conclusion. Souths will get that money off the cap. Most people don't realise this is costing Souths 3.6 million dollars. They are paying Sam his contract money. The fact they will have to spend more is irrelevant. They've been punished by losing the money already.

 

[Jerkwad2000]

I’m going to be blunt, I’m afraid You clearly don’t know what your talking about.

Sam played round 13 then went in for the operation. He didn’t play again till round 20 against the Sharks.
Played round 22, 24 & 25 before the 2 play off games.
That’s 6 games not the 14 you contended

anyone who saw those games knew he was busted, Bennett even gave him limited game time

I suggest you get your facts right if you want to get involved in a discussion

Fine, he played 6 games. 6, 10, 14. It's irrelevant. He clearly was NOT so incapacitated that he needed to retire due to the injury. The fact that he can't continue to play at the level of a 1m a year player is irrelevant.

Souths chose to sign a player with a long history of shoulder issues to a 4 year contract. He has now succumbed to those ongoing, long term issues.

Argue it all you like, facts are facts, and facts are that he played after his operations so, unless he can medically prove that his condition has worsened since the semi finals, then he shouldn't be medically retired.

 

[mave]

There's no doubt he injured his shoulder previously. But the fact the infection came after surgery, is the major and only reason Sam retired. He didn't retire after he hurt his shoulder again or even after surgery. He retired a few months later. It's a forgone conclusion. Souths will get that money off the cap. Most people don't realise this is costing Souths 3.6 million dollars. They are paying Sam his contract money. The fact they will have to spend more is irrelevant. They've been punished by losing the money already.

Why are Souths paying him his 3.6 mill ?

Didn't he retire ?

 

[Peter Quinn]

Why are Souths paying him his 3.6 mill ?

Didn't he retire ?

Yes but I think Souths are abliged to pay it because it happened playing for them.