Sam Burgess

A very sad situation if you heard the Ch9 story with an AVO taken out by Sam’s father in law. I know there was considerable angst at the wedding.

@pawsandclaws1 said in Sam Burgess:

A very sad situation if you heard the Ch9 story with an AVO taken out by Sam’s father in law. I know there was considerable angst at the wedding.

He and his Mrs have been on and off for at least 18 months

My sympathies are with his wife not with him

Just posted by Rothfield

South Sydney won’t confirm it, but the very strong tip is Sam Burgess will not play again. How the NRL handles his exit is a situation every club in the game is closely monitoring.

The man who will determine the South Sydney Rabbitohs’ premiership hopes over the next three years is not supercoach Wayne Bennett.

It is more likely to be Richard Gardham. Richard who?

He is the NRL’s chief salary cap auditor and a former accountant at Deloitte who will make the decision on whether Sam Burgess can be medically retired with his shoulder injury without affecting the club’s salary cap.

This would allow the Rabbitohs to chase a potential superstar like David Fifita by freeing up Burgess’s $1.2 million a year salary ($3.6 million while he is contracted for the next three years.)

This is a situation every club in the game is closely monitoring.

There have been situations in the past (Brett Stewart at Manly and Anthony Watmough at Parramatta) when the NRL ruled they had to stay in the salary cap despite career-­ending injuries like the one Burgess potentially has.

There were questions already being asked about the Rabbitohs earlier this year when Greg Inglis ­retired and the NRL ruled the club could get cap relief.

So we checked out the NRL rules. If a player medically retires, a club must apply to the NRL to seek salary cap relief. There are a couple of stipulations. The salary cap auditor must then study medical records and evidence to determine:

a) The player, at the time of termination, was diagnosed as medically unfit to currently continue to train and play elite-level contact sport and was medically unable to ever return to play elite-level contact sport due to the current level of disability or the significant risk of further disabling injury as a result of playing elite level contract sport.

b) The player had no similar injury or medical condition to that area of the body that either has or could reasonably be predicted medically to lead to a degenerative condition of that area of the body prior to signing his last NRL contract.

Burgess’s last contract was signed towards the end of last year.

The club’s general manager of football, Shane Richardson, said the injury was suffered this year in round five on April 13 against the New Zealand Warriors on the Sunshine Coast. He did it late in the first half but played out the game.

The very strong tip is Burgess will not play again, not that South Sydney will confirm that.

“We’re still going through a process,” Richardson said on Sunday.

“Whatever happens, Sam is entitled to get his money. It’s a matter of whether we get dispensation in the cap if he is forced to retire. We haven’t explored that or gone to the NRL.”

Souths claim to have records proving that in Burgess’s medical, when he signed in 2018, there was no indication of the shoulder problem that is forcing him out of the game.

“It definitely wasn’t a pre-existing injury,” Richardson said.

“But we still haven’t given up hope that he will play next year.”

Others claim there is more to the story. Even an acceptance among Souths’ powerbrokers that Sam’s ill-discipline, judiciary record and off-field dramas have become too much.

That they might even be quietly encouraging him to walk away.

A decision will have to be made sooner rather than later. Surely Souths can’t sit back and wait until March for a decision from the NRL. They have a roster to sort out and will need a significant signing to replace the great English forward.

last edited by WT2K

Sounds harsh, but the first thing I thought was that this is a sham from souths to get Burgess off their books. Hope I’m wrong as there are some serious allegations being made with people’s livelihood and reputations at stake. But if you look at it from a sceptical point of view, an AVO from your father in law is better than from your mrs. It can be revoked later and put down as a miss understanding once Burgess is gone. And that’s how you get someone off your books if medical retirement can’t be achieved. As I said, hope I’m wrong, but I couldn’t help but think of this point of view when it was on the news.

@Tcat said in Sam Burgess:

Sounds harsh, but the first thing I thought was that this is a sham from souths to get Burgess off their books. Hope I’m wrong as there are some serious allegations being made with people’s livelihood and reputations at stake. But if you look at it from a sceptical point of view, an AVO from your father in law is better than from your mrs. It can be revoked later and put down as a miss understanding once Burgess is gone. And that’s how you get someone off your books if medical retirement can’t be achieved. As I said, hope I’m wrong, but I couldn’t help but think of this point of view when it was on the news.

Talk about taking conspiracies to the next level

Souths: Gday Sam, we’re in a bind here with our cap old boy. We need to let you go, but to save face, we think it would be a good idea if you label yourself as a wife basher.

Sam: What an awesome, original idea

All jokes aside, there would be implications of that. Burgess gets labeled a wife beater. his wife gets labeled as a battered wife, which if untrue, paints her in a very poor light, and it makes a mockery of DV in general.

The sad thing is there would be halfwits out there who would believe this if you threw it out there. I know you are only speculating, but there’d be people who are so agenda driven, they could convince themselves that this is a fact. Don’t give idiots ammunition.

@WT2K said in Sam Burgess:

Just posted by Rothfield

South Sydney won’t confirm it, but the very strong tip is Sam Burgess will not play again. How the NRL handles his exit is a situation every club in the game is closely monitoring.

The man who will determine the South Sydney Rabbitohs’ premiership hopes over the next three years is not supercoach Wayne Bennett.

It is more likely to be Richard Gardham. Richard who?

He is the NRL’s chief salary cap auditor and a former accountant at Deloitte who will make the decision on whether Sam Burgess can be medically retired with his shoulder injury without affecting the club’s salary cap.

This would allow the Rabbitohs to chase a potential superstar like David Fifita by freeing up Burgess’s $1.2 million a year salary ($3.6 million while he is contracted for the next three years.)

This is a situation every club in the game is closely monitoring.

There have been situations in the past (Brett Stewart at Manly and Anthony Watmough at Parramatta) when the NRL ruled they had to stay in the salary cap despite career-­ending injuries like the one Burgess potentially has.

There were questions already being asked about the Rabbitohs earlier this year when Greg Inglis ­retired and the NRL ruled the club could get cap relief.

So we checked out the NRL rules. If a player medically retires, a club must apply to the NRL to seek salary cap relief. There are a couple of stipulations. The salary cap auditor must then study medical records and evidence to determine:

a) The player, at the time of termination, was diagnosed as medically unfit to currently continue to train and play elite-level contact sport and was medically unable to ever return to play elite-level contact sport due to the current level of disability or the significant risk of further disabling injury as a result of playing elite level contract sport.

b) The player had no similar injury or medical condition to that area of the body that either has or could reasonably be predicted medically to lead to a degenerative condition of that area of the body prior to signing his last NRL contract.

Burgess’s last contract was signed towards the end of last year.

The club’s general manager of football, Shane Richardson, said the injury was suffered this year in round five on April 13 against the New Zealand Warriors on the Sunshine Coast. He did it late in the first half but played out the game.

The very strong tip is Burgess will not play again, not that South Sydney will confirm that.

“We’re still going through a process,” Richardson said on Sunday.

“Whatever happens, Sam is entitled to get his money. It’s a matter of whether we get dispensation in the cap if he is forced to retire. We haven’t explored that or gone to the NRL.”

Souths claim to have records proving that in Burgess’s medical, when he signed in 2018, there was no indication of the shoulder problem that is forcing him out of the game.

“It definitely wasn’t a pre-existing injury,” Richardson said.

“But we still haven’t given up hope that he will play next year.”

Others claim there is more to the story. Even an acceptance among Souths’ powerbrokers that Sam’s ill-discipline, judiciary record and off-field dramas have become too much.

That they might even be quietly encouraging him to walk away.

A decision will have to be made sooner rather than later. Surely Souths can’t sit back and wait until March for a decision from the NRL. They have a roster to sort out and will need a significant signing to replace the great English forward.

What a rort that clubs do their own medical reviews when resigning players. Why would any club resigning a player on 1.2 mil put in his report that he had a shoulder injury that may impact his playing career at a later date. Just sign the report off as all clear then BS that he hurt his shoulder in Rnd 5 after resigning.

@Tcat said in Sam Burgess:

Sounds harsh, but the first thing I thought was that this is a sham from souths to get Burgess off their books. Hope I’m wrong as there are some serious allegations being made with people’s livelihood and reputations at stake. But if you look at it from a sceptical point of view, an AVO from your father in law is better than from your mrs. It can be revoked later and put down as a miss understanding once Burgess is gone. And that’s how you get someone off your books if medical retirement can’t be achieved. As I said, hope I’m wrong, but I couldn’t help but think of this point of view when it was on the news.

I could be very cynical but Richardson is CEO at souffs and he knows all the intricacies of the NRL and how to beat them after his time at headquarters,after the fiasco with Inglis last year and the positive “adjustment” to the cap they received from the NRL nothing would surprise me.
This would just add to the suspicion in many supporters minds about different rules for different clubs.Yes i am a very cynical man

Looking at the rules for relief due to medical retirement there is no way the NRL are going to give us any leeway on Matulino. He had a preexisting injury and it won’t matter how many games he played for us without missing a game as it could have been reasonably predicted that the pre existing injury would eventually cause his retirement.

@diedpretty said in Sam Burgess:

Looking at the rules for relief due to medical retirement there is no way the NRL are going to give us any leeway on Matulino. He had a preexisting injury and it won’t matter how many games he played for us without missing a game as it could have been reasonably predicted that the pre existing injury would eventually cause his retirement.

It’s Ben who at this very moment in time …

@diedpretty said in Sam Burgess:

Looking at the rules for relief due to medical retirement there is no way the NRL are going to give us any leeway on Matulino. He had a preexisting injury and it won’t matter how many games he played for us without missing a game as it could have been reasonably predicted that the pre existing injury would eventually cause his retirement.

Not long good is it?

@diedpretty said in Sam Burgess:

Looking at the rules for relief due to medical retirement there is no way the NRL are going to give us any leeway on Matulino. He had a preexisting injury and it won’t matter how many games he played for us without missing a game as it could have been reasonably predicted that the pre existing injury would eventually cause his retirement.

Do we actually know how many players have been successfully medically retired in the NRL era?

Watmong and Brett Stewart, the article says, were not awarded. Burgess signed a new contract for 4 years on 04/Sep/18.

Just a bit of research tells you that, at the very least, Burgess had shoulder issues in October 2018 when he withdrew from the England side after the end of the season. It does not specify which shoulder. In 2011 he injured a shoulder in his second year with Souths, and missed basically the entire season after doing his ankle on return.

As of 2016 Burgess had had two shoulder reconstructions on his R shoulder. The SMH report from 2 weeks ago says it’s a chronic issue and relates to previous reconstructions, which intimates that it’s the same R shoulder. Though, of course, in poor journalism, nobody actually states which shoulder it is, not SMH or Fox or NRL.com.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/burgess-retirement-could-leave-souths-millions-short-in-salary-cap-20191010-p52zhm.html

But every single story says either “chronic” or “degenerative”. Burgess has had as many shoulder issues as young Benji did, in my head his name is synonymous with “bung shoulder”.

I can’t see any way that, per the rules published, Rabbits could get a salary cap exemption on the basis of shoulder retirement.

Now Matulino we know has had long-standing knee issues of one kind or another. Only a medical expert can say whether the current career-threatening injury is related to those or not. It certainly not correct to say “he’s previously had knee injuries therefore the new knee injury is related”, because it may be an entirely unrelated issue, just in the same area.

But, as @diedpretty noted, the NRL seem rather particular about predictable or degenerative conditions, which I would guess is a pretty big issue regarding joints. If you want to be strict about it, any injury to a joint is in all likelihood subjecting the player to predictable risk in the future. So if you do your ACL once, I believe you are always at some increased risk of further ACL, or destabilisation of the joint puts pressure on other issues like medial ligament, PCL, knee cartilage etc.

last edited by jirskyr

@diedpretty said in Sam Burgess:

Looking at the rules for relief due to medical retirement there is no way the NRL are going to give us any leeway on Matulino. He had a preexisting injury and it won’t matter how many games he played for us without missing a game as it could have been reasonably predicted that the pre existing injury would eventually cause his retirement.

I wonder if the argument could come from the players union that pre-existing injuries could well hinder their ability to ply their trade if clubs take the line not to sign players with pre-existing injuries anymore?

It is farcical that he played as many games as he did and he could get knocked back for medical retirement.

Wests should just give him the Inglis handshake deal, quit and we’ll fix you up with a job at the club after you quit. If you want to go home, we’ll pay you 400K to be our “Kiwi scout.”

last edited by Cultured_Bogan

Lol @ “a very sad situation”
Maaaaan what?

I read the article.
Burgess was asked to leave his soon to be ex father in laws property.

Probably a reason for that.

He’s allegedly not a good partner to her.
I’m no white knight but … reports mention cheating, exposing himself to women online.