I haven't misquoted Ford, he's just given several answers about Burgess over the weeks that contradict one another.

I do know he said the one you listed above. He also at a different time said the one I mentioned.

Take the point that 6 and 7 are involved more than others and that plenty of people enjoy it, however in england matches ball is usually in play for 35 of the 80 minutes. Will sam want to spend a fair chunk of those Minutes in the premiership/ test matches rolling around on the floor playing tug of war for the ball? Worse still he may not be get any good at the dark arts of the breakdown. I can enjoy watching union the way nz and aus can play it but sam has to play for england. If he stays at bath, good luck to him and I hope he can become a top international back row. I don't know much about RU forward play but the best like Hill, back, mccaw, pocock always seem to be the guys mess up the opposition at the breakdown. Those are skills he does not yet possess.

Perhaps you are not reading the full quotes but just the headlines. I have found his full quotes to be consistent.

The latest news is that Sam will be playing at 6 this weekend and he has trained well, not said he wants to leave and his frame of mind has been brilliant. Time will tell

[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/sam-burgess/11973031/Sam-Burgess-will-see-out-his-Bath-rugby-union-contract-insists-Mike-Ford.html[/url

The back row will suit Burgess well as he is a forward and wants to be involved with tackles and carries which he will be. I personally see him as a No 8 ball carrier

Again you're just taking one version of what you've read.

Says on that one that they planned to use him as a sub for the first two games back then start the next two. (Given England's untimely exit that must've been a harshly arranged plan as he could've been playing a WC Final only a few days ago if all ever well). However on the video on BBC website he said it was always planned for him to have a break after the World Cup.

Contradictory is it not?

You might need to have a word with Ford to start playing no.8 not 6 or he may get even more confused! Ball carrier bit makes sense.

I am taking all versions into consideration and full quotes not just headlines. It is a full month since we were dumped out of the competition hardly a "harshly arranged plan" or even a hastily arranged one. So had we reached the final then the break would have come a bit later. Not contradictory and doesn't prove a conspiracy theory anyway.

His route to No 8 is best via No 6

It was hastily arranged considering it says they planned for him to be a sub in Bath's OPENING two games. Given that the opening two games for them landed on WC QF and SF week then some quick planning was needed considering they'd have expected/hoped England to still be in the tournament.

No doubt Souths have been in touch, but to get him they'd have to free up a lot of cap space and agree to a fee. It's very difficult to do for next year without unbalancing their team entirely. Which would in turn be a poisoned chalice for Burgess because if they don't have a good year it won't be long before the knives are out and people question his value.

I tend to think he'll stay in RU for another season at least, if only because Souths can't get organised, but also because I think he'll want to be seen as a success in RU, which he can only do by playing. The idea that Souths' couldn't stump up whatever it takes in terms of fee is nonsense - Crowe is the poorest owner there.

Playing for England again will be a long slog IMO. The current coaches will all get the chop - its the minimum that will change as a result of what was a disaster on the field. A new coach might find it easier to pick him, but equally might want to steer well clear. TBH it probably depends on the coach. Eddie Jones the former Wallaby coach would be open to him as he's well aware of the capability of NRL players. But an English RU through-and-through type? Just don't see them wanting or needing the kind of rubbish associated with Burgess.

Have it your own way if that is what you want to believe. The point is not relevant anyway as Sam is staying with Bath.....at least for the moment.

What you talking about, "if that's what i want to believe"......I'm quoting from an article YOU posted. Did you not read it?

Clearly says they planned to have him sub in Bath's opening two games then the next two at starter. These games fell in a period he would've expected/hoped to still be with England in he World Cup.

Elsewhere Ford said the World Cup players like Burgess were always doing to get a rest. Considering after those opening 4 games that they planned to use him they then start their European campaign it's unlikely he'd be getting rested for that period either.

So yes the point that I was making that Ford is contradicting himself does stand up, you even helped me make it by posting that article.

Which article and what date? And why does this matter?

The burgess saga has been a fiasco, he has never been given time to adapt to union. Unlike his kiwi counterpart money boy Williams .
Certain broadsheet scribes have conveniently made him one of the scapegoats for the World Cup disaster .
Cheerfully overlooking the fact he never got a decent pass in the Wales match, also England were winning when they hauled him off.
I would love to see him stay at bath and prove his critics wrong.

Part of which is his own fault. He could have stuck around at Souths until the end of the 2015 NRL season, come into the sport with the next World Cup still four years away and slowly built his way into the England side through weight of club performances.

Instead he opted to jump ship at a time that left him just 12 months to learn the game before the most high profile examination of his talents in front of a worldwide audience, under the additional pressure of expectation from the hosts.

Amidst some of the various post-tournament bits of mud-slinging, it's been a bit lost that this is a situation partly of Sam's own making,

Burgess has tried to model himself on SBW ever since he went to the NRL, and to me, part of his motivation to move to RU was to try and out do SBW. Now, as good a player Burgess is, SBW is a level above him in terms of skill level, and he's a couple of yards quicker.

New Zealand as a Team play a very "Rugby League" style of play and have played to SBWs strengths.

England as a Team play a very 1860s style of play and have played to SBs Weaknesses.

I'm sure there is some truth in that. The thing is, i think SB underestimated how poor this England side was for a host nation with great expectations which always meant his selection would be heavily scrutinised under failure which was already on the cards with the group draw etc.., despite him doing an ok job to be fair.SBW however had the luxury of slipping into a team head and shoulders above the rest under far less pressure in a star studded side, knowing that if his team performs to potential they win the WC.hence, why he now has 2 WC winners gongs.

If only life was that simple. The big problem for Sam was playing under a complete failure of coach in Lancaster .
Who whilst building steadily for the World Cup abandoned two of his creative players ford and care at the vital stage of the tournament .
Hence burgess not receiving any decent ball. All water under the bridge but Eastwood may have been better playing alongside burgess.
All this coupled with the fact that England failed miserably at turnover ball resulted in burgess never having a chance to shine.
Still his reported contract of four hundred thousand smackers a year will be of some consolation to him.

Don't believe any of this for a second. SB went to union to out do SBW? Have a word with yourself.

He went because he thought England and by extension him had a shot at winning the WC. I'm pretty sure what some 30 year old kiwi was doing was never in his head.

Burgess did talk a lot with SBW about switching.

I tend to agree that part of the problem was Burgess' own rush to get into this RUWC. SBW played RU in France under the radar for a couple of seasons before going back to NZ. He also had a skill set tailor-made for the centres. He never intended to play in the forwards.

As I've mentioned before, Ford was a ruddy idiot as well, signing Burgess simply because he was good at RL. These are quotes from when Burgess signed:

[i"Ford said he had not discussed potential positions with Burgess and had no preconceived ideas.

“First thing is for him to get over here and learn the laws; what he can do and can’t do in the tackle area. When he’s ready he might play a few games in our 2nd team. There’s no hurry, we’ve signed him for three years.

“England seem to want him at 12, and he might end up playing at 12 for us if that where he’s most effective. We’ll just throw him in and see how he goes.”[/i

As an addendum I see Bath's owner reckons he'll stay to the next RUWC.

Mind you in the same article he also reckons that bath always saw Burgess as a forward, which does contradict his coach's comments above.

I suspect Ford will have been very low down on the list of people consulted when they signed Burgess. I also think he might have been trying to be diplomatic. Bath had at the time had several centre options, another was pretty low on the shopping list. But Ford will have been well aware that the England management wanted him to play there.

That'll be the same owner who, in an article in today's Times, appears to suggest that'll be the case unless a huge offer comes in?

Either way, I really don't think SB's headed our way.

The only way SB is coming our way is if Souths do a deal with us for 1yr. If that doesn't happen, we aren't seeing SB in a Rhinos Shirt.