Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:29 pm  

Maverick Rhino wrote:

A fringe squad player has let every man and his dog know he wants to go to Australia at the end of his contract.

The club would like to keep him, so make an offer of a 3 year contract, probably more in hope than expectation.

The player, as if he is not in a strong enough position anyway through freedom of contract, wishes to hold all the aces by keeping the unsigned Leeds deal in his back pocket as security whilst trying to finalise his deal down under.

Leeds, needing to plan for next year, have no interest in stringing out the uncertainty for the rest of the year so stick a deadline on the offer. The player lets that deadline expire.

Looks straightforward enough to me, can't understand why so many are getting their knickers in a twist. There are much, much more important things for GH to deal with than Luke Burgess.

Nail on the head.

Burgess had no intention of signing. He's gone. If GH lets Burgess dangle him around for a few months and we miss out on a replacement the same experts on this forum criticising GHs style would be having a pop at him for "taking his eye off he ball".

I see Sal has moved on from comparing Burgess to Ellis to comparing him with Sinfield now.

I'd just like to remind everyone this is LUKE we're talking about, not SAM. Calm down,

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:35 pm  

G1 wrote:

Nail on the head.

Burgess had no intention of signing. He's gone. If GH lets Burgess dangle him around for a few months and we miss out on a replacement the same experts on this forum criticising GHs style would be having a pop at him for "taking his eye off he ball".

I see Sal has moved on from comparing Burgess to Ellis to comparing him with Sinfield now.

I'd just like to remind everyone this is LUKE we're talking about, not SAM. Calm down,

Spot on. I wish Luke well, I think he's been a useful addition to the squad for the last few years.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:41 pm  

I don't see the issue in releasing him. He wants t go, cant get in the squad and needs to be playing to get a contract with someone else. Personally though I wont expect to see him in the NRL anytime soon. Toyota Cup yes but not NRL. I expect to see him at Widnes, Cas, Bradford or Salford in a few years.

We cant be held to ransom by a single player who only has his sites set on moving to the other side of the world to be with his brothers. With the money freed up we can improve the deals on the likes of Ambler, Pitts and our next potential young prop in Brad Singleton

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:43 pm  

bewildered wrote:

I don't see the issue in releasing him. He wants t go, cant get in the squad and needs to be playing to get a contract with someone else.

The reason he can't get in the squad is because he wants to go not the other way round.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:05 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

The reason he can't get in the squad is because he wants to go not the other way round.

Indeed.

And despite the spin from GHHQ, Burgess is most definitely among the top 4 props currently at the club and ahead of the likes of Kirke and Bailey... or at least was until being summarily dropped from the squad.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face immediately springs to mind.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:47 pm  

Keith Swiftcorn wrote:

Indeed.

And despite the spin from GHHQ, Burgess is most definitely among the top 4 props currently at the club and ahead of the likes of Kirke and Bailey... or at least was until being summarily dropped from the squad.

Cutting off your nose to spite your face immediately springs to mind.

My thoughts exactly.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:02 pm  

heard on the radio an interview with matheson this afternoon (the bulls match) he said he had expressed an interest in Luke but Luke had declined to go on loan and was prepared to play for his position at us. prehaps a case of Gary calling someone's bluff?

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:02 pm  

roo wrote:

heard on the radio an interview with matheson this afternoon (the bulls match) he said he had expressed an interest in Luke but Luke had declined to go on loan and was prepared to play for his position at us. prehaps a case of Gary calling someone's bluff?

Hendrix is dead? Noway!

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:32 am  

The '3 days' would have followed discussions over a period of time - including Burgess basically telling GH he was looking to move to Oz. Burgess would have known exactly what was in the offer before it was tabled. Every single contract negotiation I've had that has been the case. The 3 day validity would simply have been to force Burgess' hand. Which it obviously did - it forced Burgess to walk away from it, which he would have done had GH given him 3 months to decide.

GH didn't want to p*ss around with someone for months. Last year he got slated by loads of people on here (me included) for doing that with Eastwood and then being left a minimal amount of time to find a replacement. That was Ben Cross IIRC.

Burgess' non-selection obviously has nothing to do with him not being here next year, or the 3-day period or the offer not being that great. There have been plenty of players who have played right to the end under GH, even when it was known they were leaving - even to Union. As far as I can remember, Burgess is the first to have been dropped in this way. The evidence in that sense would tend to support GH rather than the player.

Re: Cross & Burgess... Get us out of here : Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:16 am  

I am completely indifferent as regards Burgess but I am struggling to remember anything he has done in a Leeds shirt that stands out.