As I said, is the only way to pay for potential.

Assuming this is all true (and I have reason to believe it is), I'm glad that the sensible option has prevailed.

I've said for a while that I didn't see how a 1-year loan deal benefitted the Bulls. It seems very clear to me that George wants to go there permanently if he can, so it would be utterly pointless us loaning him, when we're only likely to get him back for a year at best (and more likely not even that).

Getting a transfer fee now, with potentially more if he makes it good, as well as not having to pay his wages while he's still only "potential" and not having to waste time on someone who obviously doesn't want to be here. All in our favour I'd say.

While I'm not happy about another promising young player buggering off, I think the deal is very much in our best interests considering what he clearly wants.

On the other side, I think Tom has shown that he wants to play for Bradford. The rumour was that both of them had offers on the table, but Tom chose to stay here. I'd much rather have a player who wants to be here than one who perhaps has more potential, but wants to be elsewhere. Playing at different clubs may also finally enable the twins to form their own individual name, rather than always being referred to together, which I'm sure drives them mental.

I spoke to Tom Burgess yesterday at the England v Aus academy game and he confirmed that George was going to Australia.

George was outstanding and for me was m.om in Englands 38 - 30 win, although he was lucky to get away with an elbow / forearm to the throat of an Aussie player whilst running the ball out.
England got the penalty and went upfield to score.

I think a loan deal could have been an option that benefited the Bulls but not in the circumstances above. If for example he saw a future for himself at the Bulls then I think a year in Aus before returning to the Bulls would have been good for us. Obviously a new longer deal would need to be agreed for that to work for both parties. However it would seem that perhaps George sees his long term future over in Aus so in those circumstances we would be absolutely right to let him go sooner rather than later.

will be a great move for him but obviously bulls fans will be dissapointed, but this raises questions of wether our good english players going to the nrl is a good thing for the super league and the english game.

Good thing for Super League? No.

Good thing for the England International Side? Yes.

It is disappointing to lose someone with potential, but that's all it is, potential. The first team hasn't lost anything yet, as he's still to make his debut at SL level. You certainly can't blame him for being starry eyed and looking at the lifestyle of his brother in Sydney, who wouldn't want some of that?

From the club's point of view, and I guess a fan's, it would have been better spending the money on developing someone who wants to play for the club, rather than wasting it as we have, but no one can see the future. So, for me, it's good luck and goodbye to Tom and my interest in the Burgess lads is centred very firmly on George, who isn't far behind and seems to have decided to stay. Let's hope he is the best of the lot!

*psst* T'other way round

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 6651269.jp

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/rugby-le ... 6651269.jp

Ah yes. I was wondering who was going to be the first to spot that elementary flaw.............anyway, they're twins and look very similar.



Actually, I think senility is calling..................and it's getting louder!!

Actually that may be tinnitus!

Interesting that it's still not been announced. Wonder if they're waiting until after the Aussie test series so he doesn't have any additional pressure to deal with?

I also saw one report that said Thomas turned down the option to go to Aus. Could be just naff reporting, but would be very interesting to find out the truth on that score.

It's true.

story here confirms rumours, with hood saying the deal is close to done!
[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/dec/13/george-burgess-bradford-south-sydney[/url

Read this in today's League Express and forgot to check if it had been commented on here. Hood is quoted as saying that it could be loan or could be permanent and talks were scheduled for today. In any event terms are still to be finalised according to Hood.

I guess we should find out for sure by the end of the week. Wonder if we'll get the Orford saga sewn up before the end of 2010?

Strange, given that the information seems to have been basically correct, that the OP put the signing in the past tense?

As for Orford, I bloody well hope so!!

Impression I get is that club dont want to officially announce geurge's departure until they have some good news to counterbalance it with. I'd guess the good news would be resolution of orford saga and signing a further half. Wouldnt be surprised if they announce george going tomorrow and then some good news thursday morning prior to Potters web chat on T&A website.

TBH I reckon we will get the OSV sorted out before the Orford saga.

You could well be right. I certainly wouldn't put money on it either way round. Well, not my money anyway.

Full page interview with George Burgess in today's League Weekly about his move to South Sydney.

Was surprised to see it in the paper when the Bulls haven't even officially announced he is off. Wonder why we didn't make an announcement?

Is it actually a done deal yet? If not, the Rabbitohs will be looking to reduce spend at the moment to try and save the Inglis deal and, who knows, it could be a case of every little bit helps.

It's a done deal. He's having a leaving do tonight at Dewsbury Moor where he played as a junior. I don't think his salary will count with him being in the Toyota Cup team anyway?! Not sure on that one, but I doubt it.

If the Rabbitohs need a Burgess to release, the other one they have takes more cap space.

Interestingly Connor has tweeted to say that the deal still hasn't been confirmed and that one paper has jumped the gun, I wonder if we're having issues agreeing the terms of the release (or the fee)