Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:09 pm  

Sheridan, hay and pratt were told to find another club and weren't wanted, so how you could expect a fee I aren't sure

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:11 pm  

Superted wrote:

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.

Its the only option he has. Nobody else is willing to pay the necessary amount to employ him.

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.

Well the point is to get the value of their asset rather than giving it away, the lasting damage being to lose their asset for nothing.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:53 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Superted wrote:

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.

Its the only option he has. Nobody else is willing to pay the necessary amount to employ him.

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.

Well the point is to get the value of their asset rather than giving it away, the lasting damage being to lose their asset for nothing.

The thing is, he doesn't have any option, because Leeds stated very early that he wouldn't be welcome back and his contract had been terminated, but are insisting on a fee for him to play elsewhere - they can't have it both ways in my eyes, either open the door for him to return or let him walk

As for the value of their 'asset' - what value exactly is that now? What is he currently worth to Leeds? They're not going to play him as they have found and signed a replacement, so he's worth nothing to Leeds - and the old adage of something only being worth what someone is willing to pay comes into effect - nobody is willing to pay a fee.

So; throw in the fact that he's not an 'asset', he's a young bloke.... One who understandably decided he doesn't want to move to the other side of the world when he can do the same thing closer to home, better living conditions, better competition, playing with his mates and similar or maybe even better money.... it's obvious why he wants to stay there, and Leeds lose nothing by letting him do so, other than a bit of face - particularly after GH has been so vocal in the press, and I guess that's what it all boils down to. (I'm a massive GH fan by the way - one of the most important members of our club ever - I just think he's taking the wrong route with this one).

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 9:13 pm  

Superted wrote:

The thing is, he doesn't have any option, because Leeds stated very early that he wouldn't be welcome back and his contract had been terminated, but are insisting on a fee for him to play elsewhere - they can't have it both ways in my eyes, either open the door for him to return or let him walk

As for the value of their 'asset' - what value exactly is that now? What is he currently worth to Leeds? They're not going to play him as they have found and signed a replacement, so he's worth nothing to Leeds - and the old adage of something only being worth what someone is willing to pay comes into effect - nobody is willing to pay a fee.

So; throw in the fact that he's not an 'asset', he's a young bloke.... One who understandably decided he doesn't want to move to the other side of the world when he can do the same thing closer to home, better living conditions, better competition, playing with his mates and similar or maybe even better money.... it's obvious why he wants to stay there, and Leeds lose nothing by letting him do so, other than a bit of face - particularly after GH has been so vocal in the press, and I guess that's what it all boils down to. (I'm a massive GH fan by the way - one of the most important members of our club ever - I just think he's taking the wrong route with this one).

As you rightly say if Leeds have terminated his contract but keeping his registration there comes a point where it has echoes that would have upset William Wilberforce.

On the other hand Leeds have suffered here and had to
Pay Manly a fee to get a replacement. Whether cronulla tapped him up or he just wants to play with his mates, Leeds should get something.

With just over 1 month before NRL season starts I reckon an undisclosed fee is coming soon.

If Cronulla really do not want to pay anything having signed Cherrington and not tapped him up, Segeyaro or his agent have made a big error.

I still expect an undisclosed fee, could be 20 grand and a bag of conkers.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:28 pm  

Superted wrote:

The thing is, he doesn't have any option, because Leeds stated very early that he wouldn't be welcome back and his contract had been terminated, but are insisting on a fee for him to play elsewhere - they can't have it both ways in my eyes, either open the door for him to return or let him walk

He terminated his contract when he said he wasnt going to come back.

As for the value of their 'asset' - what value exactly is that now? What is he currently worth to Leeds? They're not going to play him as they have found and signed a replacement, so he's worth nothing to Leeds - and the old adage of something only being worth what someone is willing to pay comes into effect - nobody is willing to pay a fee.

His registration is worth £250k

So; throw in the fact that he's not an 'asset', he's a young bloke.... One who understandably decided he doesn't want to move to the other side of the world when he can do the same thing closer to home, better living conditions, better competition, playing with his mates and similar or maybe even better money.... it's obvious why he wants to stay there, and Leeds lose nothing by letting him do so, other than a bit of face - particularly after GH has been so vocal in the press, and I guess that's what it all boils down to. (I'm a massive GH fan by the way - one of the most important members of our club ever - I just think he's taking the wrong route with this one).

That being the case he shouldnt have taken the security that a 2 year contract with Leeds gave him. It is a two way street. Segeyaro can't expect the benefits, financial and securitywise of a two year deal without the commitment of a two year deal. If he wants to break that deal, he should pay the penalties of doing so.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:48 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

His registration is worth £250k

No it isn't.

It is worth whatever some club or someone is willing to pay for his registration, which is currently Sweet FA.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:16 pm  

William Eve wrote:

No it isn't.

It is worth whatever some club or someone is willing to pay for his registration, which is currently Sweet FA.

That also works both ways. Its value is not only what someone is willing to pay, but what the owner is willing to accept.

Its also important to remember that Segeyaros value right now to a buyer is nothing, Will that be the case when NRL clubs find out they cant just get a player to p1ss and moan and get them for free? will that be the case when a club light on hookers loses one to injury? will it be the case closer to the season when Cronulla need to start finalising their squad?

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:34 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

That also works both ways. Its value is not only what someone is willing to pay, but what the owner is willing to accept.

Its also important to remember that Segeyaros value right now to a buyer is nothing, Will that be the case when NRL clubs find out they cant just get a player to p1ss and moan and get them for free? will that be the case when a club light on hookers loses one to injury? will it be the case closer to the season when Cronulla need to start finalising their squad?

There's a lot of 'wills' in there - whilst waiting for one of those non-guaranteed scenarios to happen, the bloke can't earn.... that's not right

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:40 pm  

Superted wrote:

There's a lot of 'wills' in there - whilst waiting for one of those non-guaranteed scenarios to happen, the bloke can't earn.... that's not right

Because he essentially refused to turn up to work.......if people were to do that in normal jobs they wouldn't be earning.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:50 pm  

Superted wrote:

There's a lot of 'wills' in there - whilst waiting for one of those non-guaranteed scenarios to happen, the bloke can't earn.... that's not right

He has chosen not to. Freedom to accept another contract was the opportunity cost of HIS acceptance of his Leeds contract.