Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:36 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

He was brought over with his family - the club clearly decided it had made a mistake, they even played a junior when he was fit to play.

Whatever you might think he was a hell of lot better player than Hallas at that point. What does that say to the player and to Aussies coming here - no wonder Leeds are unable to attract the quality of player the likes of Wigan, Saints and Warrington can from down under.

As soon as Segeyaro appeared he was on a plane back home having been hardly given a chance to settle into a team that was in complete disarray.

If you think that is how employees should be treated good for you.

He was dreadful. He came over and i'm not even sure the player himself wanted to be here anyway. The player couldn't find a club in the NRL and came here on a one year deal as we desperately needed a hooker, he was stop gap. Goes home a couple of months early big deal, and probably paid up. Again, show me where Falloon is crying foul and i may accept your cries of disgust at his mistreatment.

Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:04 am  

leedsnsouths wrote:

Okay well will posit this to you, did it look like the players were clear on the defensive structure and knew their role regarding whether they should push across or hold in defence? did it look like they were all trying 100%?

Wigan, do defend well consistently and it has allowed them to still win many games when not playing well

My point is that if we can't get Segeyaro and don't have the played we want, we can still be successful by spending nearly all of our training time on defence (as Wane admitted Wigan did last year), keeping the tries conceded to a minimum and using our edge strike players to grab tries here and there.
Its not pretty rugby, but I don't think Mac (or GH) have any real excuses why we can't challenge this year, Segeyaro or not.

I could answer all this with the exact post you just quoted. You think and post like a child.

One thing I will answer is, yes, when I saw the team play last year I did think the players were trying 100%. So more "effort" isn't going to magically fix anything.

Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:33 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

He was brought over with his family - the club clearly decided it had made a mistake, they even played a junior when he was fit to play.

Was he fit to play? Seem to recall him playing vs Saints and his back looked knackered. He then missed a few but he played in the final 3 games before Segeyaro was announced including starting 2 of them. Hardly dumped out of the first team picture.

Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:25 pm  

DHM wrote:

I could answer all this with the exact post you just quoted. You think and post like a child.

One thing I will answer is, yes, when I saw the team play last year I did think the players were trying 100%. So more "effort" isn't going to magically fix anything.

Answer what? you have just resorted to insults which I think shows your childishness more than mine.

If the effort was there then the fitness clearly wasn't as we conceded soft tries all season.

Have you ever even played RL? Do you know how important the defensive structures are? Wigan won the GF because Wane spent most of the season solidifying his defence.
You can't ignore that Wire had a better defence in Round 1 than we managed all season.

Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:34 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

The point I made about a transfer is simple did Leeds pay a transfer fee for Segeyaro as your example of Roby - the answer to that is no. So why should Leeds be entitled to one given the investment they made in Segeyaro?

Wigan had Charley, Manfred, Gelling and Sargison I would suggest that is equally as good a back line as ours - the fact you can't see that shows just how blinkered you opinions are

The point about I was making about Falloon is simply that if Leeds don't want somebody that is a tangible example of how they treat them. You can't take the moral high ground when you behaviour comes from the gutter. This is not the first time either we can go all the way back to Sheridan/Hay etc. To see what the club and the CEO do when they want rid of players.

Your changing on your point about club trained players being the only ones worth transfer fees there aren't you? And in a way we did pay a transfer fee for Segeyaro as we swapped Hardaker for him, which provided cover for a position for Penrith that they desperately needed (though his worth to us at that point was debatable)

Charnley and Manfredi vs Hall and Briscoe is pretty even and I would suggest that our centres are clearly better. The only player I would swap would be our right wing- Briscoe for Manfredi.

Look, GH is no Mother Teresa and having never met him may be a bit of a b*stard, but the big difference you seem to be ignoring, is that we did not break Falloons contract as he was (much like Eric B. and Rakim) paid in full.
Segeyaro on the other hand is trying to break contract, which shouldn't be accepted by Leeds or indeed the rfl.

Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:51 pm  

Why don't they get Segs to pay Leeds what they would pay him if he honoured his contract - what they did with Falloon but in reverse. Why don't they just do that with all these scenarios - Sandow and Solomona too?

If there is so much more money in Union or Oz, I'm sure they could scrabble it together and it would be a measure of how 'homesick' they actually are...

Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 5:54 pm  

Loving the '80s hip hop ref!

The point about 'investment in a player' is ridiculous - how often do you see PL footballers leave on a free transfer at the end of their contract, even though they've developed at a club? The payment relates to the loss the club will suffer in a period when contractually they should be able to expect a contribution.

Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:27 pm  

Jamie101 wrote:

Why don't they get Segs to pay Leeds what they would pay him if he honoured his contract - what they did with Falloon but in reverse. Why don't they just do that with all these scenarios - Sandow and Solomona too?

If there is so much more money in Union or Oz, I'm sure they could scrabble it together and it would be a measure of how 'homesick' they actually are...

If we get to January the 3rd with it still unresolved and Segeyaro sticks to his plan of staying in Australia surely we can fine him for not turning up to training? If so is there any limit to how much and how many times you could fine him if he continuously failed to show week upon week, month after month?

Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:17 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

If we get to January the 3rd with it still unresolved and Segeyaro sticks to his plan of staying in Australia surely we can fine him for not turning up to training? If so is there any limit to how much and how many times you could fine him if he continuously failed to show week upon week, month after month?

We shouldn't fine him but simply stop paying him since he's in breach of contract.
Or are you suggesting some punitive costs on top of what he should be paid?

Re: James Segeyaro : Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:41 pm  

leedsnsouths wrote:

Answer what? you have just resorted to insults which I think shows your childishness more than mine.

If the effort was there then the fitness clearly wasn't as we conceded soft tries all season.

Have you ever even played RL? Do you know how important the defensive structures are? Wigan won the GF because Wane spent most of the season solidifying his defence.
You can't ignore that Wire had a better defence in Round 1 than we managed all season.

The fitness was clearly the issue. Like DHM I didn't witness any lack of effort last season. What we did see was players exhausted after 20 mins. Now partly that's down to us not winning the play the ball and so putting ourselves on the back foot, but that again is primarily a fitness issue.

Correction. Wane spent most of pre-season solidifying his defence. Everything after that is just trying to keep the players fit enough to play with some minor tactical corrections/adaptations.