Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:14 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

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.

The problem is, any fee counts on the cap - hence the Sharks always maintaining they can't and won't pay a substantial fee. They've been open throughout - if Segeyaro can get a release to return to Oz, they're interested, if not, they're not.
Which then leaves a young bloke unable to earn a fair wage from the game - and for what?

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:19 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

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"

He'd have had at most 1 months wage of his new contract, get that back by all means, but hardly worth £250k fee.

And as I said, Leeds would no doubt have paid him if he'd got injured, but that's the same point I made earlier and does mean it's a bit of a lopsided agreement in thenplayers favour - but, when signing from overseas, this type of thing could always happen, and for me that's part of the gamble - with it only being a few weeks after signing and well before pre-season started,, I don't see the need to take him to task for wanting to backflip.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:22 pm  

Superted wrote:

The problem is, any fee counts on the cap - hence the Sharks always maintaining they can't and won't pay a substantial fee. They've been open throughout - if Segeyaro can get a release to return to Oz, they're interested, if not, they're not.
Which then leaves a young bloke unable to earn a fair wage from the game - and for what?

Leeds and the rest of SL can't afford the best NRL players anymore......should NRL teams just give them to us for free because we really want them?

That's the exact problem, Cronulla asked a player to go and get himself released from his contract, that's all wrong. You want a contracted player, you bid for him, you don't try what they've done.

Segeyaro could be earning a wage right now.......at Leeds, if he knew Cronulla weren't prepared to pay a fee then he shouldn't have taken the course of action he did and should've gone about it in a respectful manner like others who have departed early have done.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:35 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

.

Segeyaro could be earning a wage right now.......at Leeds, if he knew Cronulla weren't prepared to pay a fee then he shouldn't have taken the course of action he did and should've gone about it in a respectful manner like others who have departed early have done.

Completely agree - but, he always expressed his desire to stay in the NRL if a deal was available, nowni get the deadline for this passed and he's played the whole scenario terribly - he's lost all credibility, but I still don't think it's right to essentially prevent him from earning what he's worth in a limited career given the relatively small timescales of the whole situation and the fact Leeds have sorted a replacement.

He is 100% wrong throughout this whole situation, Leeds absolutely have the moral and legal high ground and are IMO legally in a position to demand a fee - but I maintain, given the promptness of his his wish to renege (the fact it was off season and before he'd carried out any duties), his 'homebird' personality and personal situation and the fact Leeds sorted an adequate replacement, just let it go....

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:42 pm  

Thing is Leeds didn't terminate his contract straight away when his first media piece about not wanting to return to came out. Between that piece and him being terminated GH will have spoken to him and told him he wouldn't be allowed to go for nothing, so Segeyaro has taken the option to not earn a wage by refusing to come back to the UK.

He's the reason he's not earning a wage right now, nobody else.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:46 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

That's the exact problem, Cronulla asked a player to go and get himself released from his contract, that's all wrong. You want a contracted player, you bid for him, you don't try what they've done.

Were Cronulla to pursue a libel action against you over the above, would you consider it as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Or would you regard it as a justifiable and proportionate response?

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:56 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

Were Cronulla to pursue a libel action against you over the above, would you consider it as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Or would you regard it as a justifiable and proportionate response?

Considering the same thing has been said in national Australian press I don't think they're bothered by one poster on a English message board saying it.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:22 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Considering the same thing has been said in national Australian press I don't think they're bothered by one poster on a English message board saying it.

Not really the point. Feel free to imagine they did and answer the question.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:53 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. 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.

In reality, his obligations started when he agreed them. Just as Leeds did. It would have been similarly unacceptable for Leeds to simply decide not to pay him.

All the equivocating about the impact on Segeyaro ignores one simply but crucial fact. Segeyaro could have honoured his obligations to Leeds. He could have earned a lot of money for playing rugby league. It was his choice to give up that money. Segeyaro knew, when he decided to avoid his responsibilities that he wouldnt earn that money.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:54 pm  

Superted wrote:

The problem is, any fee counts on the cap - hence the Sharks always maintaining they can't and won't pay a substantial fee. They've been open throughout - if Segeyaro can get a release to return to Oz, they're interested, if not, they're not.
Which then leaves a young bloke unable to earn a fair wage from the game - and for what?

Isnt the problem there the NRL rules rather than Leeds actions?