Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:21 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Segayaro was world class, and saved us from relegation. The club therefore knew the importance of keeping him. They also knew he wanted to be in the NRL if he could, but chose to forget that bit.

They haven't forgotten that, it's just clear that the deadline to go had passed.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:33 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I agree Segeyaro hasn't covered himself in glory but the approach of the club doesn't show them particularly in a good light.

I am sure he told GH at their meeting in Australia that he wasn't going to return yet GH announced to all and sundry he was.

Nobody wins here and as has been mentioned the club is preventing somebody from plying their trade - morally someone has to take the higher ground and move on.

It's not about who "wins". It's simply one club wanting a player but not wanting to pay a fee, that Segeyaro has muddied the waters with his course of action doesn't change that.

Want a player, pay a fee, simple as that. Leeds "not in a good light"? They're asking for a transfer fee, that's all, that's not a bad light, that's totally reasonable and on the Cronulla forums I've seen most fans whilst wanting Segeyaro to join have actually applauded Leeds and GH for the stance they've taken and said fair play to them.

Segeyaro has prevented himself from plying his trade by his actions. Cronulla are stopping him from plying his trade by clearly going after him and then bailing when a fee was needed.

I'm also sure that when Segeyaro was in Yorkshire meeting with GH to agree his deal he wasn't the confused, lonely homesick guy he made himself out to be later.

If Leeds had turned down offers then I could understand the argument that we're being harsh, but Cronulla haven't even been in touch or offered a penny.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:58 pm  

To be fair, I don't think the Sharks have done anything wrong, the blame is all on Segeyaro. The Sharks have simply approached his manager, but have maintained all along that they can't and won't pay a fee - they've put it back to Segeyaro and his management that the offer is there if they can agree a release with Leeds.

But, despite this all being Segeyaro's doing, I personally would still sooner we just cut ties. He's a young, misguided bloke who's made a bad decision - that happens in life. For me, like I said earlier, life is more important than rugby league - let him go on his way. In reality, Leeds have lost nothing and are in exactly the same position they'd have been in had he bailed before the September deadline. I'd no doubt have a different view if it was mid-season or mid-contract, but it's not, it was a couple of weeks later before his contractual obligations had begun.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:21 am  

What if sageyaro had badly injured himself playing under contract do you think this misguided player and his advisors would have waivered his wages?

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:06 am  

Superted wrote:

To be fair, I don't think the Sharks have done anything wrong, the blame is all on Segeyaro. The Sharks have simply approached his manager, but have maintained all along that they can't and won't pay a fee - they've put it back to Segeyaro and his management that the offer is there if they can agree a release with Leeds.

But, despite this all being Segeyaro's doing, I personally would still sooner we just cut ties. He's a young, misguided bloke who's made a bad decision - that happens in life. For me, like I said earlier, life is more important than rugby league - let him go on his way. In reality, Leeds have lost nothing and are in exactly the same position they'd have been in had he bailed before the September deadline. I'd no doubt have a different view if it was mid-season or mid-contract, but it's not, it was a couple of weeks later before his contractual obligations had begun.

I don't think you can totally let the sharks off the hook as they most likely tapped up segeyaro

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:28 am  

I agree with what everyone is saying, Segeyaro was a god send last year and certainly helped us at the end. The thing is hes gone and nowt we can do about it.
One thing that looks certain is we have a very good replacement who certainly looks the real deal on his pre season games I only hope our players can keep up with him

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 10:56 am  

Superted wrote:

To be fair, I don't think the Sharks have done anything wrong, the blame is all on Segeyaro. The Sharks have simply approached his manager, but have maintained all along that they can't and won't pay a fee - they've put it back to Segeyaro and his management that the offer is there if they can agree a release with Leeds.

But, despite this all being Segeyaro's doing, I personally would still sooner we just cut ties. He's a young, misguided bloke who's made a bad decision - that happens in life. For me, like I said earlier, life is more important than rugby league - let him go on his way. In reality, Leeds have lost nothing and are in exactly the same position they'd have been in had he bailed before the September deadline. I'd no doubt have a different view if it was mid-season or mid-contract, but it's not, it was a couple of weeks later before his contractual obligations had begun.

It was weeks after his contract obligations had begun. Leeds had planned and recruited around having Segeyaro. There are players for whom this season will be their last as a professional player, players for who Segeyaro's decision will have made a sizeable difference to their chances of lifting one more piece of Silverware.

If Segeyaro wanted a clause in his contract that he could leave whenever he wished, he should have negotiated one in to his contract. The reason he didnt, is that such a clause would have massively depressed his salary, if he was offered one at all.

Similarly, right now, he could agree to pay the transfer fee to break his contract himself. He could negotiate a lower wage so that the NRL club can pay his transfer fee. The reason he isnt is because he wants the money.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:35 pm  

I disagree - whilst he'd agreed the new contract, in reality, his duties didn't really start until he returned for pre-season. Sure it inconvenienced Leeds, but ultimately have ended up in probably the same place as if he'd rejected the deal weeks earlier.
As for expecting Segeyaro to buy himself out - I doubt many people could afford to pay out that sort of money, and for what - inconveniencing Leeds for a few weeks.... it's overkill.
Those saying he would have expected to be paid had he got injured, I agree, he would - but the club are big enough to deal with that, as an individual, he's not got the same resources to deal with this whole fallout. Him leaving does not have anywhere near the same impact on Leeds (they've already got an adequate replacement), as him not being able to earn what he's worth from the game will have on his entire life.
I might be getting soft in my old age - but I've made mistakes, agreed to things I didn't really want to do and then changed my mind, and I'd hate to think anyone would have held me over a barrel for it....
Ultimately, Leeds have hardly been impacted by this and are fighting the matter of principle (and I repeat, wholly Segeyaros fault) but in doing so are causing a young bloke to potentially lose hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of earnings from what is already a short career with limited earning potential. Regardless of who's fault it is - that just doesn't sit well with me.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:00 pm  

Superted wrote:

Those saying he would have expected to be paid had he got injured, I agree, he would - but the club are big enough to deal with that, as an individual, he's not got the same resources to deal with this whole fallout.

True the club is big enough to deal with that.....and Cronulla (or any other NRL team) are big enough to offer a fee if they want him and that's what we're asking of them to do.

For all the criticism of GH being tight with money, we've now got to a situation where he's being criticised for not allowing someone to leave for free just because another club doesn't fancy having to pay anything and want Segeyaro on the cheap.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:12 pm  

Superted wrote:

I disagree - whilst he'd agreed the new contract, in reality, his duties didn't really start until he returned for pre-season.

Yet he will have been getting paid at that time. When you sign a contract you're a Leeds player all year round regardless of in-season or pre-season.

What do you think would happen if he got seriously injured whilst on his pre-season break? Do you think Leeds would turn around and say "oh well his duties didn't start for another few weeks so bye bye James"