Travis Burns

[Macca]

He is in the team because he is a goal kicker.

If he didn't kick goals he'd be a bac rower in a PL side I reckon.

BUT

and get THIS!!!!

He does kick goals, so it doesn't f**king matter.

 

[domdom]

i think burns is a top player, and hope he stays in the maroon and white.

you guys should have tried harder to keep him, as he has a huge future ahead of him.

he has the nuggety aggro a team needs in defence and gives a team alot of options in attack. he was pretty error prone earlier in the season, but that was due to the exurberance of youth. he's sorted that out since (a penalty from him cost us a match against the dragons).

top player! thank you sharkies!

 

[Special K]

Id love Burns to come back!!!! Not too many kids go from Jersey Flegg to First grade in a hop!

He didn't. He played most of last year in PL and made his debut last season.

Luke Douglas you could say made the 'hop' as he only had what two games in pl?

 

[Bundy]

i think burns is a top player, and hope he stays in the maroon and white.

you guys should have tried harder to keep him.....

.....top player! thank you sharkies!

My info is that he wasn't happy at the Sharks because he realised that Kimmorley, Dykes and supposedly Aitken were infront of him for the half back spot and he refused to play 5/8.
Max bought him and he found out he was second to Orford! Now... What number is on his back?

 

[wittyfan]

(a penalty from him cost us a match against the dragons).

A penalty? More like about four. But I digress....

 

[Акула]

My info is that he wasn't happy at the Sharks because he realised that Kimmorley, Dykes and supposedly Aitken were infront of him for the half back spot and he refused to play 5/8.
Max bought him and he found out he was second to Orford! Now... What number is on his back?

What a load of crap

Where is your info from?

Travis burns was signed by Manly, by his own accord, he was happy with sharks, but at the time, money was the contributing factor.

Do you have anytthing to say thats infomative, read over your posts.

Imbecile

 

[wittyfan]

The little he was offered suggests that the Sharks weren't happy with him!

 

[Акула]

He went to manly for more witty, no matter what sharks offered him.

Im sure 80% of this forum would think so.

 

[wittyfan]

I wonder what Manly did offer him?

 

[Frenzy.]

Yes Burns left the Sharks to go to The Roosters after we only offered him $5,000. Roosters then bought Airwaster to go with Finch and Soward so there was no future there so he moved to Manly

 

[The Nulla #2]

I enjoyed the days i saw burns in the black white and blue, although it seems once the media beefed him up about his form with manly it got me jealous.

 

[Frenzy.]

The little he was offered suggests that the Sharks weren't happy with him!

No it reflects on how the Sharks can't compete with the rich clubs. All the NRL teams spend their cap. Or just under. Or sometimes way over. Whatever.

They then have the second tier cap for PL players.

Flegg get paid what a club can afford. We can't afford to give much to them to keep them on board.

My mail was that the Roosters gave Burns $15,000. Because they can. Where would you of gone wittyfan?

The Sharks are not rich enough to give big money to rising stars - that's a lot of the reasoning why we let so many go.

 

[Акула]

No it reflects on how the Sharks can't compete with the rich clubs. All the NRL teams spend their cap. Or just under. Or sometimes way over. Whatever.

They then have the second tier cap for PL players.

Flegg get paid what a club can afford. We can't afford to give much to them to keep them on board.

My mail was that the Roosters gave Burns $15,000. Because they can. Where would you of gone wittyfan?

The Sharks are not rich enough to give big money to rising stars - that's a lot of the reasoning why we let so many go.

Bang.

Its quite simply that.

Manly and roosters are big

 

[Special K]

Yes Burns left the Sharks to go to The Roosters after we only offered him $5,000. Roosters then bought Airwaster to go with Finch and Soward so there was no future there so he moved to Manly

No. That was Porter. Burns went to Manly in 2005 - Porter went to the Roosters.

You are bang on about the figures and all that but it was Porter not Burns.

 

[Акула]

if scott porter plays 1st grade in his football career ever then then rugby league is officially dead

 

[Frenzy.]

No. That was Porter. Burns went to Manly in 2005 - Porter went to the Roosters.

You are bang on about the figures and all that but it was Porter not Burns.

You're right K. I was wrongly thinking Porter and Burns left together but it was Porter and Green wasn't it. Not together as in same club but same year.

I think Green is with the Clydes now.

 

[The Dodger]

Manly and roosters are big

are they as big as the camel clutch (iron sheik finishing move)

 

[Dragon Slayer]

OK then

You reckon Covell was in the worst 5 wingers in the clubs history.

Myself and others quite rightly didn't think so.

Then you asked me if he didn't kick goals would he still be in the team.

The club signed him for his goal kicking.

Are you OK ....keeping up?

If you concentrated more on what you were reading rather than being a sniping smart ass you might answer the question properly!!

Would he be in the team if he didn't kick goals?

I will help you.

NO!

Because he has no other skills.

Yes he is in the team for his goal kicking.
But before the Warriors game his percentage was 69%.
Hardly a flattering stat from a supposed sharp shooter.

Your right in one area though.
There is no real alternative for goal kicking at a reasonable percentage and at First Grade standard.

If there was, Covell would be cutting oranges for Premier League.
Hopefully the Sharks sign someone for next season who is a sharp shooter and can contribute in other areas to the team.
Then we might be able to get someone who is a class winger who would've had 10 tries to their name and not just 5.


Now go back and look at the stats.
http://www.rleague.com/db/year/2006/nrl_telstra_premiership/stats.php

So who else would be kicking the goals in the team.

Noddy?
missed 4 or 5 games with an ankle injury..
not really the sort of injury a goal kicker wants is it?

hmmmm who else is there?

Oh that's right Hilder....bit hard when he's been in PL or at best on the bench.

Simmo????

Never kicked in 1st grade that I'm aware of...or beyond for all I know.

You bagged out his 8 + points a game for this year.

That is the 4th highest in the NRL.

Guess who is ahead of him?

I'll tell you.

Some bloke called Andrew Johns.
Some bloke called Hazem el Masri.
some bloke called Jonathon Thurston.

and that's all.

So why do you think he is in the team?

Maybe the club have no idea hey?

Now I'll answer your OT question.

Would've John Holmes made porno's if he had a little dick?

Probably just a few short movies.

 

[Sam Shark]

Please don't group any of the aforementioned players for the Sharks in the same bracket as Jarrod Anderson. He is clearly the greatest worst player in the NRL of all time (if that makes sense!).

The rest are Immortals compared to him.

 

[blacktip-reefy]

f there was, Covell would be cutting oranges for Premier League.
Hopefully the Sharks sign someone for next season who is a sharp shooter and can contribute in other areas to the team.
Then we might be able to get someone who is a class winger who would've had 10 tries to their name and not just 5.

have to agree with Dipsh*tt here Carch. 5 tries is not good enough. In fact 7 is not good enough either & that is Alberts tally. iirrelevant if he can kick goals or not, our wingers need to score more tries, like they did last year when peach was running their show & kicking for them & setting them up.
If an outside back hasnt scored 10 by now, then hie is f*cked. I'm glad Dipsshiitt & I finally agree on something.
nathan Merrit has 9 tries.
& I think Peach had 10 tries by this point lst year.
Am i forgetting somebody?