Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:53 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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.

He could - but it means moving to the other side of the world, and given the opportunity to earn similar money and stay nearer his family, I don't blame him for wanting to take that option instead - and given it was only a matter of weeks after the deadline, and Leeds are now sorted, Leeds should just let him do that and move on.

SmokeyTA wrote:

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

Absolutely, but thems the current rules. I don't think Leeds have done anything wrong, I just don't see the point in holding him to task, even though Leeds are well within their rights to do so. Each case should be looked at on merit, and in this case, there's no lasting damage, so move on.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:21 pm  

Superted wrote:

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....

You are correct in assuming Leeds have the Legal and moral high ground and therefore can legally demand a fee, where you are wrong is the fact he missed his notification ( 1st September ) deadline by a couple of months and if that is what you call prompt then lets hope you don't become a time keeper.

He had also carried out his duties from he arrived in the UK until the point of informing Leeds of his intention to walk on on his contract ( Continuation of service ).

The players want to have large long term contracts as they have a short playing career which is fine but this deal has to work both ways employer / employee. If players want short termination contracts say one months notice then fine but I am sure clubs would not be prepared to pay the big dollars.

The main problem is the NRL clubs can pay a lot more then we can and therefore players will be enticed however if clubs don't stand up to this tactic then how many other players will be 'homesick' / retire and then turn up somewhere else for more money.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:34 pm  

Clearwing wrote:

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

I did answer the question, that you didn't like the clear answer is your problem.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 12:28 am  

I might be over simplifying here but until Jan 3rd Segeyaro was given permission to be in Australia by Leeds. Leeds, knowing he wasnt going to return, signed Parcell as a replacement.

Shouldnt Segeyaro's agent have advised him to return to Leeds on Jan 3rd? Leeds would then have had a problem and would probably have ended up releasing Segeyaro to go to Cronulla.

Personally i understand Leeds' stance but realistically the game needs Segeyaro's on the field, we have replaced and moved on so get a deal done with Cronulla asap and let him play. We can keep him out of the game for 2 years but what benefit do Leeds and the sport gain from that?

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:31 am  

Marty Grrrrrrrrrr! wrote:

I might be over simplifying here but until Jan 3rd Segeyaro was given permission to be in Australia by Leeds. Leeds, knowing he wasnt going to return, signed Parcell as a replacement.

Shouldnt Segeyaro's agent have advised him to return to Leeds on Jan 3rd? Leeds would then have had a problem and would probably have ended up releasing Segeyaro to go to Cronulla.

Personally i understand Leeds' stance but realistically the game needs Segeyaro's on the field, we have replaced and moved on so get a deal done with Cronulla asap and let him play. We can keep him out of the game for 2 years but what benefit do Leeds and the sport gain from that?

The benefit is that contracts actually mean something and can't just be ignored. This is of vital importance to the game here. Whilst the game here might miss a player of Segeyaro's quality, the NRL will not.

It's pretty simple for both Segeyaro and Cronulla. If Segeyaro didn't want to stay at Leeds, don't sign the contract, nobody forced him to. If Cronulla want to sign a contracted player then they should do it through the proper channels and pay a transfer fee and not tap him up and try and persuade him to get out of his contract. Something which many NRL clubs have been active at doing over the last 10 or so years.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 7:55 am  

Him wrote:

The benefit is that contracts actually mean something and can't just be ignored. This is of vital importance to the game here. Whilst the game here might miss a player of Segeyaro's quality, the NRL will not.

It's pretty simple for both Segeyaro and Cronulla. If Segeyaro didn't want to stay at Leeds, don't sign the contract, nobody forced him to. If Cronulla want to sign a contracted player then they should do it through the proper channels and pay a transfer fee and not tap him up and try and persuade him to get out of his contract. Something which many NRL clubs have been active at doing over the last 10 or so years.

I agree and thats why i said do a deal asap, im not saying release him, but there is a bigger picture. The last thing we need is to fall out with his agent as he is one of the big players in RL. We also dont want any potential signings thinking if it doesnt work out at Leeds my career will be on hold for duration of my contract.

Its not like we developed Segeyaro and invested time and money in him for a long time. He was a Leeds player for 2 months. He clearly wont play for us again so whats point in not getting a deal done. Clearly 250k is a nonsense and an unobtainable amount.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:10 am  

Marty Grrrrrrrrrr! wrote:

I agree and thats why i said do a deal asap, im not saying release him, but there is a bigger picture. The last thing we need is to fall out with his agent as he is one of the big players in RL. We also dont want any potential signings thinking if it doesnt work out at Leeds my career will be on hold for duration of my contract.

Its not like we developed Segeyaro and invested time and money in him for a long time. He was a Leeds player for 2 months. He clearly wont play for us again so whats point in not getting a deal done. Clearly 250k is a nonsense and an unobtainable amount.

Leeds are looking to do a deal, that's why they have publicly said that Segeyaro is available for a transfer fee. If he really wants to leave then as I have said before why not say to the Sharks,
I will sign a reduced salary of say £ 60,000 per year on a three year deal and you offer Leeds 180k. ( Sentiment mentioned before not amounts for anyone who goes back and checks posts )

I am pretty sure that doing this he would still be on more than he was here, He gets to pay and play, we get a transfer fee, Sharks get a squad player, happiness all round. Oh hang on though would they be worried he might not honour a three year deal and therefore not worth the risk.

On future overseas players all they have to do is negotiate a release clause that if not happy after x months then they can give notice and leave, oh hang on just like Leeds did with Segeyaro..

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:31 pm  

illy wrote:

Leeds are looking to do a deal, that's why they have publicly said that Segeyaro is available for a transfer fee. If he really wants to leave then as I have said before why not say to the Sharks,
I will sign a reduced salary of say £ 60,000 per year on a three year deal and you offer Leeds 180k. ( Sentiment mentioned before not amounts for anyone who goes back and checks posts )

I am pretty sure that doing this he would still be on more than he was here, He gets to pay and play, we get a transfer fee, Sharks get a squad player, happiness all round. Oh hang on though would they be worried he might not honour a three year deal and therefore not worth the risk.

On future overseas players all they have to do is negotiate a release clause that if not happy after x months then they can give notice and leave, oh hang on just like Leeds did with Segeyaro..

If I was cronulla or any other club, would you want to splash out any transfer fee under any circumstances to sign a player who has already renegaded on one contract, what's to say he did agree a smaller salary and cronulla pay a transfer fee then he decides to f*** of again.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:06 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

I did answer the question, that you didn't like the clear answer is your problem.

I did like it as your evasiveness tended to undermine rather than strengthen your argument. So no problem here.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:11 pm  

rollin thunder wrote:

If I was cronulla or any other club, would you want to splash out any transfer fee under any circumstances to sign a player who has already renegaded on one contract, what's to say he did agree a smaller salary and cronulla pay a transfer fee then he decides to f*** of again.

The trouble is that Leeds have been a soft touch for years and years allowing players to leave for a paltry or no fee at all.Gary Spencer,Craig Innes, Sheridan,Hay,Pratt,Buderus etc.
In the current climate i.e Sale V Cas its about time they made a stand with regard to honouring contracts. The thing about players agents is just a smoke screen,agents are'nt doing their job properly if they hold a petty vendetta against a particular club.