Im sure a sport players contract doesn't have a notice period so uf breached he would be liable for the remainder of his contract if breached.

DOyou want a player who will not give you 100%

I agree and also wonder what sort of reception he would get if he did return???
However, I think this is all about the 'contract'. Either it's legally binding or what's the point of having it.
What would the player or his agent think if, after agreeing the contract, Leeds or Castleford or Warrington said to the players concerned, " sorry, we've changed our minds we don't want you after all and we're not going to pay your wages. We suggest you play for some other team. Or if the player got injured and the club reacted in the same way.

This needs following through so that players and 'poaching' clubs realise that a contract is 2 way and has both a value and is both legally and morally (whatever that means these days) binding on all parties involved.

This is the thing with the whole "don't want him back if he isn't truely dedicated to the club".

It's an unlikely scenario that he'll be back but for arguments stake if he did you know that if he put in a couple of good performance at the start of the season then people wouldn't be saying they still don't want him back in the team.

This is sh*t. Has screwed our season.

He's not going to be back, so either we get an acceptable offer for him, or he can rot without playing for 2 seasons as far as I'm concerned. We need to take a firm stance on this he signed a contract for 2 years.

He was at a loose end and we gave him a chance. He came over no strings attached and had the option to return to NRL, but he committed to us then we gave him extra time off over pre-season.

Now he decides meh not sure I feel like it.

Tough.

No we don't, but if the other option is just to let him walk away then we stand our ground. We don't come out as winners either way, but if clubs keep capitulating to the whims of players then the game will die.

Leeds will get an undisclosed "acceptable" offer at some time. The tragedy here is Leeds can't afford to let him rot and the Aussie clubs know it.

GH has gone public now because Leeds want the deal done ASAP because we desperately need a replacement in quickly to train with the squad for the new season.

Just something else worth considering;

In the NRL, any transfer fee paid counts against that year's salary cap, which will have a serious impact on any NRL club being able to pay a fee anyway. Not only that, the NRL then charge the clubs an additional charge of 50% of the transfer fee that is put into the NRLs grass roots kitty (this charge doesn't go on the salary cap).

So let's say an NRL club was to agree a £300k fee and Segeyaro is earning £150k.... That would mean to get their man, they'd be paying out £450k on their salary cap for the first year - no NRL club will have that sort of room left in their cap. If you then take into account the £150k grass roots charge, you're talking £600k in total for year 1.... That's makes him the most expensive player in the game in 2017... Not going to happen....

So Leeds either forget the fee/accept a minimal fee and let him go, or force him to come over and have a disgruntled player on the books..... It's a no brainer for me...

It's the principle of it. He's decided at the last minute after we've made pre-season plans based around him, and now we're supposed to bend over because he'll be unhappy?

For me, either he returns disgruntled and has to play well to make sure he get's a deal next season or he can rot.

Unless we can get someone decent to replace him.

See this is one of the issues I mentioned before about how badly do Cronulla want him? Let's not forget he was out of favour from the start of the year at Penrith and in all that time no one offered him an NRL deal. Cronulla knew Ennis was retiring before Segeyaro even set off over here let alone the Option date of Sept 1st and still didn't go for him and were happy to go with other options for the hooking role rather than get rid of somebody to bring him in. It's only Ben Barba's departure that's led to them having some salary cap to spend. That they didn't bring him in when they could've had him for free doesn't strike me as a team that's then going to splash out for him especially when the void in their squad has come from a starting FB departing. You would imagine he's not the only player they're looking at right now and you wonder if they themselves wash their hands of the messy situation.

Can we afford though? I'm sure we'll have the cap space to still bring in another hooker as we normally leave something spare in the cap and whatever hooker we bring in wont exactly be big time/money. Whatever wage he's on will be serioualy dented by fines if he doesn't return to the country so probably wouldn't lose that much at all keeping his registration. The usual problem in these situations is that you don't want an unhappy sulking influence on the training ground and in the dressing room but again if he stays in Australia that part isn't a issue either.

I get the whole principle argument - it's absolutely right..... but it still doesn't make it the best option all round.

On Cronulla, they were interested pre-September re-signing, but didn't have enough cap space to do anything. And now it's not a question of replacing Barba, as Barba will be rejoining the Sharks on a much reduced contract (basically his $900k salary minus the 3 months he'll be suspended - I guess they'll also be paying him less per year than his original contract, but will offset this by extending the number of years he's signed for.) Essentially, Segeyaro will be paid out of the Barba savings this year - so he Sharks get both their men!