Re: James Segeyaro : Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:27 pm  

illy wrote:

The point with this is we have now paid a transfer fee to replace a player who has broken a contract and this is costing the club money, ( as our replacement was CONTRACTED to another club ) so why shouldn't we also benefit from the supposed security of a contract.

With regards to:

Greg Eastwood as far as I recall he stated he was homesick while still playing for Leeds and asked to leave at the end of the season.
Danny Buderus asked to be released from the last year of his contract as he wanted to play his final season with Newcastle ( His Club)
Toni Carroll Wanted to go back to Aus as England based players were not going to be chosen for state of Origin games, again requested while here not sure if also smashing shoulder into barrier at the 'NEW' JJB stadium had a influence on that.

The player that would have set the precedence for this case would have been Craig Innes, but this was during the superleage war and he walked out on us before the Semi Final against Bradford
( I think ).

With regards to Warrington and Sandow, Warrington are holding his registration and therefore if he plays in the next 12 months they will receive a transfer fee exactly the same stance as GH.

We ended up in this position as a player signed a contract with us when they were no other offers out there and soon as there was strong possibility of a better one he has tried to do the dirty.

If anybody is prepared to pay a fee for him all well and good - that doesn't seem likely at this point. So just holding out for nothing seems futile to me but if it makes GH feel like more a man good for him. If Leeds have paid a fee for a reserve grade NRL hooker it shows how desperate Leeds are - I doubt Cronulla are equally desperate.

Eastwood did what Segeyaro has done - Canterbury came knocking and he suddenly has home sickness. Wayne Bennett goes to Newcastle and all of a sudden Buderus wants to has his last season at Newcastle. Leeds didn't stand in their way so why be so stubborn in this case and neither did they get a fee or a player exchange for two players who it could be argued were as important to Leeds as Segeyaro.

Re: James Segeyaro : Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:58 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

compare Warrington's approach to Sandow to that of GH so much more grown up.

As has been pointed out, Wolves still hold Sandow's registration.

Plus, the lack of any serious cries of indignation from Warrington reflects more on the fact that he had become a bit part player for their team (& they are probably glad to free up some large cap space), as opposed to Segeyaro, who most would say was crucial to our 2017 & 2018 plans, until he reneged on his deal.

Sal Paradise wrote:

If Leeds have paid a fee for a reserve grade NRL hooker it shows how desperate Leeds are

Not true. He wasn't reserve grade whilst playing for Manly in 2016 - 15 games played for the first team until injury curtailed his season.

Re: James Segeyaro : Sat Dec 24, 2016 4:58 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If anybody is prepared to pay a fee for him all well and good - that doesn't seem likely at this point. So just holding out for nothing seems futile to me but if it makes GH feel like more a man good for him. If Leeds have paid a fee for a reserve grade NRL hooker it shows how desperate Leeds are - I doubt Cronulla are equally desperate.

Eastwood did what Segeyaro has done - Canterbury came knocking and he suddenly has home sickness. Wayne Bennett goes to Newcastle and all of a sudden Buderus wants to has his last season at Newcastle. Leeds didn't stand in their way so why be so stubborn in this case and neither did they get a fee or a player exchange for two players who it could be argued were as important to Leeds as Segeyaro.

Leeds may have had to pay a fee for parcelle, because he was in contract. The fee was to buy out his contract. Now the clubs may have agreed the transfer openly and agreed that as he was not first choice the fee was zero.

With regards to buderus and Eastwood, they left two years after signing a contract, and given decent service. Not changed their minds a couple of weeks after signing because a better offer came along

Re: James Segeyaro : Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:44 pm  

Exeter Rhino wrote:

Leeds have a history here with Ryan Sheridan, Andy Hay, Karl Pratt and Darren Fleary when Powell took over. I'm not sure whether they received any compensation, but IIRC all had long term deals at the club at the time.

Good balanced post highlighting the hypocrisy.

Doesn't fit the narrative being depicted by all the fawning groupie fans of a nasty and extremely bitter CEO though.

Re: James Segeyaro : Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:55 pm  

William Eve wrote:

Good balanced post highlighting the hypocrisy.

Doesn't fit the narrative being depicted by all the fawning groupie fans of a nasty and extremely bitter CEO though.

Apart from the fact that they will have been given compensation, or they would have been taken to court. Leeds wanted rid, so settled the contract. Its how contracts work

Re: James Segeyaro : Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:10 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

If anybody is prepared to pay a fee for him all well and good - that doesn't seem likely at this point. So just holding out for nothing seems futile to me but if it makes GH feel like more a man good for him. If Leeds have paid a fee for a reserve grade NRL hooker it shows how desperate Leeds are - I doubt Cronulla are equally desperate.

Eastwood did what Segeyaro has done - Canterbury came knocking and he suddenly has home sickness. Wayne Bennett goes to Newcastle and all of a sudden Buderus wants to has his last season at Newcastle. Leeds didn't stand in their way so why be so stubborn in this case and neither did they get a fee or a player exchange for two players who it could be argued were as important to Leeds as Segeyaro.

Your logic is laughable to be honest mate, your asking the guy who runs the financial part of the club to not seek compensation for lost funds
If he just let him go for nothing he wouldn't be doing his job

Eastwood and Buderus told us with plenty of time in advance of the new season, Segeyaro didn't really tell us at all, he just kicked up a fuss in the Aussie press and said he wasn't coming back.

I think it is quite funny that no NRL club is willing to pay a transfer, serves Segeyaro right of thinking any club is privileged to have him.

Re: James Segeyaro : Sat Dec 24, 2016 6:24 pm  

William Eve wrote:

Good balanced post highlighting the hypocrisy.

Doesn't fit the narrative being depicted by all the fawning groupie fans of a nasty and extremely bitter CEO though.

So Negative as always:

Ryan Sheridan had left a 12 month contract with Leeds and had been brought in by GH from his old club Sheffield Eagles. He was informed that Daryl Powell no longer wanted him as part of his plans for Leeds so we could bring in Mcguire, Burrows and Dunneman. He left Leeds and signed a 2 year contract with Widnes. ( Probably had his remaining contract paid out and at least the difference over the 12 months )

Andy Hay, See above regarding Ryan Sheridan.

Darren Fleary was given a six month notice period that his contract would be terminated, and during that time Huddersfield offered him a contract, Leeds at first said no to the transfer and offered him a squad place after he recovered from injury however Darren wanted to leave, so he became a giants player.

Karl Pratt I have covered on an earlier post .

Yes the club and GH makes mistakes but they are a business and not some cold ruthless machines that some people on hear imagine or ( fantasise about )

Re: James Segeyaro : Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:57 pm  

Eastwood and Buderus both decided to return to Australia mid season AFTER finishing that season with Leeds which gave us time to plan for the following season. They didn't sign a new contract, say to management and coaches they're happy to remain here and then do a u-turn a couple of weeks later by announcing, not to their faces btw, of their wanting to leave in the Aussie press.

If he came back to Leeds and said in April/May etc. that he wanted to leave at the end of 2017 even though he had another year then I'm sure we'd have let him go. Even if he spoke to Leeds officals privately and just told the truth that he just had a more tempting offer instead of playing the BS homesick to the Aussie press in an attempt to force Leeds to release him then again Leeds may have been willing to let him go.

Sure people can provide plenty of examples were Leeds have wanted to get rid of players because they no longer feature in their first team plans, happens at every club.....but they didn't just rip up there contract and stop paying them.

Re: James Segeyaro : Sun Dec 25, 2016 8:52 am  

leedsnsouths wrote:

Your logic is laughable to be honest mate, your asking the guy who runs the financial part of the club to not seek compensation for lost funds
If he just let him go for nothing he wouldn't be doing his job

Eastwood and Buderus told us with plenty of time in advance of the new season, Segeyaro didn't really tell us at all, he just kicked up a fuss in the Aussie press and said he wasn't coming back.

I think it is quite funny that no NRL club is willing to pay a transfer, serves Segeyaro right of thinking any club is privileged to have him.

Your inability to comprehend is duly noted. In the same post you have said the club should seek financial compensation but nobody is prepared to pay!! Now that is truly laughable

My point was/is nobody is going to pay Leeds for him so what is the point of holding his registration? its childish - if you think Leeds who have cancelled his contract will be able to stop him playing then you are more naïve than I thought. You cannot prevent somebody with whom you have no contract earning a living.

Its a pointless exercise - Leeds should just move on and concentrate on building a side that doesn't finish in the bottom 4. That would be progress

Re: James Segeyaro : Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:00 am  

There are two broad points here.
1. How GH is handling the specific Seggy issue. I believe he is well within his rights to kick up a stink. I agree it will probably be to no avail but just letting a player walk literally days after her signed an extension and then us having to pay for a replacement is not on. He has to make a noise about that.
2. The wider 'contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on' issue we as a sport find ourselves facing. Something has to be done that deters players from going rogue and protects clubs. Of course if a player AND club come to a mutual agreement that is different.

I will watch with interest how the Seggy, Sandow and Solomona pieces end.