Don't get me wrong, I want him off the cap too, but I don't think he's doing anything wrong.

I'm not naive enough to not know why he's sticking with his contract and not just retiring, just frustrated with the situation as i said in my previous post

IF he retires and we pay him off, does that then count against the cap?

I get the cap needs to safeguard against false situations created as a backdoor for getting rid of deadwood, but in this instance there's a major player welfare issue.

If paying him off does count against the cap, then it's almost forcing the club to keep trying different things. That's not good for GB and could seriously impact his long term health.

The club need to be able to strike a deal with him that, not only suits both parties financially, but also doesn't impact our cap spend too.

If you're going to pay him his full contract then you might as well count it and try to get something out of him to be fair. If you're trying to pay him less then there is negotiating to do, in which he holds the cards. Plus potentially the accusation of not supporting his return to work if we are trying to get him off the books rather than get him back on the pitch.

I can't help but think that there's more to this than money . Rads himself has said that this is impacting his quality of life outside of rugby, which has to be a massive worry for GB. It's all good other poster's saying "I wouldn't walk away from guaranteed money" etc, but the fact this might literally impact his ability to walk in a few years means there's more to it.

An agreement is just that too - one that both parties agree to so I can't see why there'd be any accusations.

There's probably a deal to be had there that's satisfactory to both GB and Wigan. It's just finding it & what impact that has on the cap.

no as the medical insurance pays him off not the club

IF the insurance pay up on a pre existing injury.

course they will, he has to be fully insured, its part of the stipulations for a professional sports club.

I never said he hasn't got insurance, I just doubt how easy it will be to get a payout on a pre-existing injury. Much like every other type of insurance people get.

Most life insurance policies either refuse cover, or push up the premium to cover even the smallest existing condition. Why would a sports insurer be different, especially seeing the risk of injury is greatly increased?

I know but thats like saying manfredi cant get a payout on his knee if he retired die to it, he was given a new contract with it so would ne not be covered? Dont think sports insurance works like that. Sam Burgess was paid off and he has his shoulder issues for 10 years

Nope. Not insured for pre existing injuries

Think you are all jumping the gun. Looked like Wigan are being patient and trying to diagnose the problem properly.
He would have to take voluntary retirement to get him off the books....

Of course the club will support him as they will never admit that they had made a mistake in signing a player on reputation with no checks on any injury or fitness.

A total embarrassment for the club in the eyes of the Rugby League World

what proof have you got of this?

Burgess had and passed a medical before he signed for Wigan.

but Sam Burgess was...funny that

Oooohh ooh ooh!
I think 8 know the answer to this one

Is it "None"?

(Just like he had no proof that all the staff at leigh knew they'd got un SL before either was announced, when corrected never to be seen on that thread again.)

Shame on you!
Replying to that mon!

sorry pal, well done on your win

This reads like it was a different injury to his other shoulder issues...

[urlhttps://www.nrl.com/news/2019/12/06/souths-have-cash-to-splash-after-burgess-retirement-declared-salary-cap-exempt/[/url

.

[urlhttps://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/the-interesting-insight-into-sam-burgess-shoulder-injuries/[/url

4 surgeries on the same shoulder, they said they dont know if it started in 2008 or the most recent one so like I said.

GI wasnt medically retired but got that from the NRL - ‘The NRL had decided to treat the Inglis case similar to a medical retirement, whereby the full payment to the player is included in the salary cap for the season in which he is injured but not the following year’ - So now that he’s not retired, this no longer applies?

By 'They said', do you mean a physio on Twitter? The NRL said it wasn't pre-existing, so one of them is lying?

I have no idea when it comes to Inglis.

I'll still stand by my original comment however, I can't see any insurance firm willingly paying out for a pre-existing injury.

Insurance companies dont tend to pay out willingly for anything. How recently have you tried to claim on your car or home / contents insurance

.

what they will do is increase the premium that is paid to get cover. For example, my father in law had a history of heart problems, so his insurance to go abroad was significantly greater than i would pay. I would assume that something similar would apply with sportsmen. If they have a known injury, then the club is likely to pay a higher premium for someone with an existing condition v an 18 year old with no existing injuries.

im quite sure he would be uninsurable if thats what your saying, he wouldnt be allowed to play without full cover

i wonder if it is like getting insurance if you live on a floodplain or near to a volcano where you are covered for everything except that specific risk. So if George drowns or is hit by a lava bomb then no problem.