Sam Burgess retires

[Tiger5150]

Had a mate who reckoned he was overrated.
I made him sit down and watch a game and every time Sam did something I said “Sam”

after about 40 instances he acknowledged the fact that he was wrong.
Most non Souths fans wouldn’t watch their games close enough to see all the stuff he did.
All those “1% plays” the average fan doesn’t even notice. It was always Sam doing it. Hs ability to read the play and clean up stuff or shut down what others didn’t see coming was amazing

I dont think there are many RL fans who dont rate him as one of the top forwards in the world.

 

[Peter Quinn]

Slowly, and simply.......

Was that surgery a result of him busting his left shoulder? The same shoulder that had been reconstructed twice?

Very clearly YES. But the infection wasn't part of the foreseeable deal when a decision was made to have the surgery.

 

[Peter Quinn]

Can I ask that all you anti Sam people, go to a place where you can write whatever you want about Sam Burgess and not provoke genuine Souths supporters to the point where abuse flies and they get banned from the forum. Or, if any of you have the guts, go to Redfern next Wednesday and say all this to his face. Surely you guys aren't cowards or anything. Anyone can hide behind computers and mouth off. But show your strength is much more acceptable and braver.

 

[Tiger5150]

This article published today in the Sydney Morning Herald has a few salient points about medical retirements, and the criteria used by the NRL -



As to the time frame, the same article says -

Based on those extracts, as we have discussed previously in this thread, its clear cut he shouldnt get the medical retirement cap exemption (previous injury). There is one error in this article though, THIS event will not create a precedent, the precedent has already been set with Watmough, Stewart & Matai. Of course the precedence concept is totally reliant on consistency and we know Greenburgs opinion of that.

This case is apparently different to all previous cases because:

• He is a good player
• Its Souffs
• Media darling
• Its big money

You are kidding yourself if you think that this case will be dealt with the same as if it was a Chris Lawrence, Ben Matulino, Robbie Rochow type player. Greenburg is a master at making a big statement when its easy (low money, low profile player/club) and going the smother when its hard.

Ive said a lot in this thread, but I want to be clear. Sam Burgess was a great player, one of the best props Ive seen, would have loved to have had him at the Tigers. It does seem like he is buggered and genuinely probably cant play on and in that case I dont blame Souffs for seeking to get it off the cap, it almost makes sense....but...for mine the biggest issue in the game at the moment is the uneven interpretation of rules by the heirachy who clearly play favourites and it grinds my gears.

For me again I dont blame Souffs (thats rare for me) but it makes me sick when you see that everything is orchestrated to certain players and clubs adn it extends beyond the club into the heirachy and further into the media. It is an orchestrated campaign. A month ago you get out of the blue Mark Carroll saying "you know what, Sam Burgess shoulder is buggered", then an orchestrated campaign of fluff pieces over the time, each one very specific. In the recent media pieces the narrative was always Sam injured the shoulder in NEW injury since signing blah blah blah. None of it is circumstantial or left to chance, its a campaign. Pisses me off.

 

[Tiger5150]

Very clearly YES. But the infection wasn't part of the foreseeable deal when a decision was made to have the surgery.

Really? Really? Have you ever had surgery? Every surgery has risks and the specialist and doctors are VERY particular about outlining the risks when you decide to have the surgery. Every surgery Ive had this has been the case and in every surgery infection is explicitly stated as a risk. You weigh it up and decide the likelihood of the benefits outweigh the risks and you have the surgery. Quite clearly in this case the surgery was not a success and the risk outweighed the benefit.

So what you are saying.....very clearly YES, he had to have surgery because he busted the shoulder he had busted twice before and the surgery wasnt successful. Sad story.

 

[yobbo84]

Putting club rivalry/ribbing aide, do you know why clubs like the Broncos, Roosters, Souths seem to get a "better" deal with the NRL in regards to matters such as these? Because they're professionally run clubs with experienced C-level types in the front office. Not "club boys" and "footy heads".

They don't have meetings about how to cheat the cap and keep minutes.
They don't put agreements in writing about guaranteeing a post-footy position if they leave the club.

The other clubs need to get better.

 

[Tiger5150]

Can I ask that all you anti Sam people, go to a place where you can write whatever you want about Sam Burgess and not provoke genuine Souths supporters to the point where abuse flies and they get banned from the forum. Or, if any of you have the guts, go to Redfern next Wednesday and say all this to his face. Surely you guys aren't cowards or anything. Anyone can hide behind computers and mouth off. But show your strength is much more acceptable and braver.

You are the only triggered Souffs supporter Ive seen in this thread. There are other souffs supporters in the thread but in the whole they seem to have given their opinion and responded to others opinion.

Generally speaking I havent seen anyone bag your Sammy as a player, there hasnt even been much bagging of him as a bloke in this thread (despite a lot of fuel for that argument). IMO the bulk of this thread has been discussing how the cap dispensation should be dealt with in a manner that is fair and consistent with precedence.

As I have stated, I totally understand Souffs position with regards the cap, but I am also keen for consistency (with precedence and other clubs) and also preventing YET another massive loophole for cap rorting.

Do you think it is coincidental that Sammy was announced 30/10 and Gillette 31/10?

FWIW I would have no trouble fronting up at Redfern, tapping Sam on the shoulder and telling him "Mr Burgess I demand that NRL management deal with your retirement in a fair and consistent manner!!!" I'd be a bit embarrassed and he'd be scratching his head, but whatever.

 

[Peter Quinn]

You are the only triggered Souffs supporter Ive seen in this thread. There are other souffs supporters in the thread but in the whole they seem to have given their opinion and responded to others opinion.

Generally speaking I havent seen anyone bag your Sammy as a player, there hasnt even been much bagging of him as a bloke in this thread (despite a lot of fuel for that argument). IMO the bulk of this thread has been discussing how the cap dispensation should be dealt with in a manner that is fair and consistent with precedence.

As I have stated, I totally understand Souffs position with regards the cap, but I am also keen for consistency (with precedence and other clubs) and also preventing YET another massive loophole for cap rorting.

Do you think it is coincidental that Sammy was announced 30/10 and Gillette 31/10?

FWIW I would have no trouble fronting up at Redfern, tapping Sam on the shoulder and telling him "Mr Burgess I demand that NRL management deal with your retirement in a fair and consistent manner!!!" I'd be a bit embarrassed and he'd be scratching his head, but whatever.

Your only on here because your own teams forum is dead. R hahaha.

 

[Peter Quinn]

Really? Really? Have you ever had surgery? Every surgery has risks and the specialist and doctors are VERY particular about outlining the risks when you decide to have the surgery. Every surgery Ive had this has been the case and in every surgery infection is explicitly stated as a risk. You weigh it up and decide the likelihood of the benefits outweigh the risks and you have the surgery. Quite clearly in this case the surgery was not a success and the risk outweighed the benefit.

So what you are saying.....very clearly YES, he had to have surgery because he busted the shoulder he had busted twice before and the surgery wasnt successful. Sad story.

Go away clown. Souths will crush your gay tigers.

 

[Peter Quinn]

Based on those extracts, as we have discussed previously in this thread, its clear cut he shouldnt get the medical retirement cap exemption (previous injury). There is one error in this article though, THIS event will not create a precedent, the precedent has already been set with Watmough, Stewart & Matai. Of course the precedence concept is totally reliant on consistency and we know Greenburgs opinion of that.

This case is apparently different to all previous cases because:

• He is a good player
• Its Souffs
• Media darling
• Its big money

You are kidding yourself if you think that this case will be dealt with the same as if it was a Chris Lawrence, Ben Matulino, Robbie Rochow type player. Greenburg is a master at making a big statement when its easy (low money, low profile player/club) and going the smother when its hard.

Ive said a lot in this thread, but I want to be clear. Sam Burgess was a great player, one of the best props Ive seen, would have loved to have had him at the Tigers. It does seem like he is buggered and genuinely probably cant play on and in that case I dont blame Souffs for seeking to get it off the cap, it almost makes sense....but...for mine the biggest issue in the game at the moment is the uneven interpretation of rules by the heirachy who clearly play favourites and it grinds my gears.

For me again I dont blame Souffs (thats rare for me) but it makes me sick when you see that everything is orchestrated to certain players and clubs adn it extends beyond the club into the heirachy and further into the media. It is an orchestrated campaign. A month ago you get out of the blue Mark Carroll saying "you know what, Sam Burgess shoulder is buggered", then an orchestrated campaign of fluff pieces over the time, each one very specific. In the recent media pieces the narrative was always Sam injured the shoulder in NEW injury since signing blah blah blah. None of it is circumstantial or left to chance, its a campaign. Pisses me off.

The tigers can't keep players, coaches or fans. So I guess they are going good eh? Haha

 

[Tiger5150]

<deleted >

 

[Springs09]

Your right pay Greenburg more.....

Pay the Board.

Players, so very over rated.

Forgive me for wanting the bloke to get paid...

George the parasite approves.

Yeah right cause not paying Sam money he hasn't worked for is like saying pay Todd Greenburg more...

Not saying nothing about all the players who pay the game to break their bodies every week for the love of it
Or the thousands of volunteers who work their arse off to keep the game from dying when the NRL gives them jack shit.

Yeah nah Sam deserves all that money for being so entertaining, including when he f**ked off to union to give himself better opportunities and profile, really helped the game then.

 

[Tiger5150]

Your only on here because your own teams forum is dead. R hahaha.

Go away clown. Souths will crush your gay tigers.

The tigers can't keep players, coaches or fans. So I guess they are going good eh? Haha

Ok we are done. Im not going to respond to anymore of your posts because you are clearly not capable of doing so above a 12yo level.


oh and by the way....

http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/matches/38564

 

[Springs09]

Ok sure.

I just think a bloke who is not playing does not count.

I think ex players should be looked after.

That is just me.

Alright can I have some money please. I played 28 games this year. Reffed 10. Had 11 broken bones and 7 concussions last 10 years.
$3.6m please. I only did it to entertain the kiddies.

Sam can make an insurance claim and get what he can from that. If he doesn't get his full contract's worth then if Souths want to pay him it can count on the cap. f**k off with this medically-retired, players deserve $5m for playing 1/4 of their contract shit.

 

[Peter Quinn]

Ok we are done. Im not going to respond to anymore of your posts because you are clearly not capable of doing so above a 12yo level.


oh and by the way....

http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/matches/38564

 

[Peter Quinn]

 

[Peter Quinn]

Ok we are done. Im not going to respond to anymore of your posts because you are clearly not capable of doing so above a 12yo level.


oh and by the way....

http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/matches/38564

 

[Peter Quinn]

You missed these.

 

[Mr Angry]

Alright can I have some money please. I played 28 games this year. Reffed 10. Had 11 broken bones and 7 concussions last 10 years.
$3.6m please. I only did it to entertain the kiddies.

Sam can make an insurance claim and get what he can from that. If he doesn't get his full contract's worth then if Souths want to pay him it can count on the cap. f**k off with this medically-retired, players deserve $5m for playing 1/4 of their contract shit.

Sure, if you actually played.

Look after the man, he has put in.

He is not going to play, so who cares who pays what.

So Sour.

 

[nick87]

Sure, if you actually played.

Look after the man, he has put it.

He is not going to play, so who cares who pays what.

So Sour.

Again, no one is against Sam Burgess getting his money. He should get it. Every damn cent. He's earned it.
Its about the salary cap implications. And you can say f**k the cap if you like, but f**k the cap suits about 3-4 clubs and hot tip, yours and mine arent in that group