Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:17 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

If Leeds were out of pocket I might incline more towards this view. As it is, we're rid of a player of questionable temperament.

i get the motivation to try and play the good guy here, but there is a strong case of players needing to be careful what they wish for here because a contract that they don't have to honour, is also one that clubs don't have to honour.

And its not just the removal of that security that will be to their detriment. It increases the value of a player to a club to not only have him, but prevent anyone else having him. Having the player as an asset increases his value to a club, not having him as an asset will reduce his value. Not to mention the value to the club of being able to plan on having a player, again without that a player is far less valuable to a club - and all these lower values would result for most players in a lower wage and less security. If a player can walk out on a contract on a whim, why not have them on a sporting equivalent of a zero hours contract? If the club get no security, why offer anything further than a pay as you play deal?

This may be a Randian wet-dream for the Murdoch-right, and in fact no doubt some of the very best players would make an awful lot of more money selling their services to the highest bidder every week, but for most players, including those of Segeyaro's level it would a gig-economy nightmare. Lets not forget Segeyaro took a wage from Penrith for nigh on year despite playing only 4 games, and prior to his cameo at Leeds last year couldnt find a gig in the NRL.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:22 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

If Leeds were out of pocket I might incline more towards this view. As it is, we're rid of a player of questionable temperament.

Well they've had to go out and spend money on Parcell so will be out of pocket.

Ateotd in sport if Club A wants to sign Club B's player then they offer a fee, that's all this is but has been complicated by said player & agent because Club A don't want to pay a fee.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:06 pm  

I'm 100% with Hetherington on this one. Once you sign a contract you have both legal and moral obligations and if you're not prepared to match up to those there have to be consequences. Leeds aren't the bad guy here, and no amount of pursuing some form of compensation will make it so the club is in the wrong. Both sides signed a contract and only one was prepared to fulfil it. If it were the other way around and Segeyaro had been left without a club and none wanted to take him do you think his lawyers would have just gone 'Oh well, let's be the bigger men in this and forget it'? No, they would have demanded full payment of his remaining contract.

A stand needs to be taken for the good of the sport.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:18 am  

^^^^^ It's as simple as that

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:13 am  

Big Jim Slade wrote:

I'm 100% with Hetherington on this one. Once you sign a contract you have both legal and moral obligations and if you're not prepared to match up to those there have to be consequences. Leeds aren't the bad guy here, and no amount of pursuing some form of compensation will make it so the club is in the wrong. Both sides signed a contract and only one was prepared to fulfil it. If it were the other way around and Segeyaro had been left without a club and none wanted to take him do you think his lawyers would have just gone 'Oh well, let's be the bigger men in this and forget it'? No, they would have demanded full payment of his remaining contract.

A stand needs to be taken for the good of the sport.

Excellent post

This I guess is also Gary Hetherington's point of view on the matter.If we get dry bummed with this Segeyaro contract dispute then the flood gates will be open and plenty more clubs will have to suffer the consequences down the track.
A stand needs to be taken here.

Cronulla need to agree a transfer fee if they want him,if they don't wish to pay one then IMO they can get f**ked

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:17 am  

Big Jim Slade wrote:

I'm 100% with Hetherington on this one. Once you sign a contract you have both legal and moral obligations and if you're not prepared to match up to those there have to be consequences. Leeds aren't the bad guy here, and no amount of pursuing some form of compensation will make it so the club is in the wrong. Both sides signed a contract and only one was prepared to fulfil it. If it were the other way around and Segeyaro had been left without a club and none wanted to take him do you think his lawyers would have just gone 'Oh well, let's be the bigger men in this and forget it'? No, they would have demanded full payment of his remaining contract.

A stand needs to be taken for the good of the sport.

Bang on! 100% correct. I genuinely have trouble understanding how others have a different view point.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:30 am  

sgtwilko wrote:

I genuinely have trouble understanding how others have a different view point.

Me too. There is no other way of approaching this situation.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:23 am  

So if nobody is prepared to pay a fee then what do Leeds gain other than my dad is bigger than your dad?

If most on here think it will make players see out their contracts I personally don't agree - we have seen with Carroll, Buderus and Eastwood the exact same scenario i.e. I want to cut my contract short and the reaction of the club to be very different. All the above made the same commitment as Segayaro and failed to come good on their word

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:53 am  

In Segeyaro's case he went runnning to the press to try and force Leeds' hand, Buderus etc. didn't do that and I think if Segeyaro had kept this behind closed doors with GH and the club and asked if he could leave that way he may well have gotten his wish or at least stood a better chance than the tactic he went for.

Leeds still stand to make a transfer fee, if not now and if not Cronulla then someone will need a hooker sometime this year through injury to a starting 9 or planning for their squad for 2018.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:02 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

So if nobody is prepared to pay a fee then what do Leeds gain other than my dad is bigger than your dad?

If most on here think it will make players see out their contracts I personally don't agree - we have seen with Carroll, Buderus and Eastwood the exact same scenario i.e. I want to cut my contract short and the reaction of the club to be very different. All the above made the same commitment as Segayaro and failed to come good on their word

different scenarios.

Carrol had a 2-4 year deal with a return to Nrl clause after two years, and he informed the club half way through season 2 that he was returning to Brisbane.

Buderus asked for a release for one final hurrah, if Newcastle had not come calling or a deal could not have been done he would have stayed, and being a model professional would have given is all.

similar to Eastwood, lad not happy but put in a shift and would have played on if deal was not done. was honest and upfront about it.

segayero as not been professional or honest upfront, just acted like a spoilt brat who wants his own way.