Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:15 pm  

RHINO-MARK wrote:

Whatever your views on W.Eve i 100% agree with his latest pov.

Billy talks quite a lot of sense, he just likes to disguise that fact with liberal dollops of Bull $h!t from time to time

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:20 pm  

leedsnsouths wrote: There is no need to rush the issue now, Segeyaro needs a club and the sharks need a hooker more urgently than we need the money. I think we should hold firm, if Segeyaro wants to play so much they can take the transfer fee out of his wages and if the Sharks want him so badly they could pay the fee and back-end his contract. This Don't know if this reliable but seems to back up what you say..even if they don't stump full amount of money they should pay something. Hopefully GH will hold firm. take note Sharks..Chicko raring to go..get your check book out https://au.sports.yahoo.com/league/a/34 ... cle/#page1

leedsnsouths wrote: There is no need to rush the issue now, Segeyaro needs a club and the sharks need a hooker more urgently than we need the money. I think we should hold firm, if Segeyaro wants to play so much they can take the transfer fee out of his wages and if the Sharks want him so badly they could pay the fee and back-end his contract. This Don't know if this reliable but seems to back up what you say..even if they don't stump full amount of money they should pay something. Hopefully GH will hold firm. take note Sharks..Chicko raring to go..get your check book out https://au.sports.yahoo.com/league/a/34 ... cle/#page1

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Wed Mar 01, 2017 11:35 pm  

He's apparently having to rely on friends and family to stay afloat according to that article. Diddums. Oddly enough had he not done what he has, he'd be on a nice regular income today.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:33 am  

LCC are too busy spunking away £30m on cycle paths that even cyclists don't like to use.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:18 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

LCC are too busy spunking away £30m on cycle paths that even cyclists don't like to use.

Care to provide evidence for that assertion of yours regarding the source of funding?

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:51 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

LCC are too busy spunking away £30m on cycle paths that even cyclists don't like to use.

£30 m I find that hard to believe. Unless it's from here to Inverness

[Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino]

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:06 am  

DfT funding wasn't it?

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:12 am  

Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino wrote:

DfT funding wasn't it?

30 million smackers for cyclists!! Thought we were living in the age of austerity.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:20 am  

Backwoodsman wrote:

£30 m I find that hard to believe. Unless it's from here to Inverness

Nope just from Leeds to Bradford.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:25 am  

Yep, it was funded by the Government, not LCC. It's really badly designed too & resulted in longer journey times for cyclists.