Re: £250.000/strictly confidential : Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:50 am  

Jonesy's a Legend wrote: are you sure sal? [/b] Read more at: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-2180526 i'm not exactly sure what the club received by way of compensation but i do believe that they were recompensed sufficiently despite gh not publicly stating the figure received gary hetheringtons statement regarding chicko's release sounds not too dis similar to his statement regarding harris imo [/b] http://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/leeds-r ... M5BdvmLS70 Yes I am they compared what they paid Warrington for him to what Leeds paid for Lewis Jones with inflation

Jonesy's a Legend wrote: are you sure sal? [/b] Read more at: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/s ... -1-2180526 i'm not exactly sure what the club received by way of compensation but i do believe that they were recompensed sufficiently despite gh not publicly stating the figure received gary hetheringtons statement regarding chicko's release sounds not too dis similar to his statement regarding harris imo [/b] http://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/leeds-r ... M5BdvmLS70 Yes I am they compared what they paid Warrington for him to what Leeds paid for Lewis Jones with inflation

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:16 am  

The rumours on the Sharks forum is that Leeds have received roughly half of the original asking price.

Re: £250.000/strictly confidential : Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:42 am  

loiner81 wrote:

Who cares who paid?

Which part of Him's "The main point anyway was about ensuring NRL clubs have to pay some kind of fee and have to directly negotiate with SL clubs and my response to his post do you have a problem with exactly?

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:49 am  

Good luck to segeyaro he's a cracking player and provided us with a boost last season. Hindsight is 20-20 but he shouldn't have extended the deal.

Anyway Leeds have a new hooker and he looks pretty good so everyone is a winner.

Re: £250.000/strictly confidential : Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:07 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

You make a fair point but for me if Leeds are going to stand tough then they need to demonstrate that the stance has yielded the desired outcome.

Not a paltry few grand which is what a lot on here - me included - think

I refer you back to Kevin Sinfieldl's post, Sal. You must've missed it when I quoted it in my post earlier.

GH has made the point that players will not be able to just walk out on contracts. Segeyaro has had no pre season, missed the start of the NRL season, and doesn't even have a contract with another club yet, plus he will have had no income for the last 3/4 months.

Obviously we have got nowhere near the £250,000 asking price, which is why it's been kept confidential. It sounds like it could be Segeyaro buying himself, rather than Cronulla. The true figure is probably in the region of £50,000.


Not sure what else you'd like Leeds to do, weren't you one of those on here saying Leeds should just release him and move on? I personally think this has been handled brilliantly.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Y
When you say Leeds never release transfer fees that is simply not the case we all know how much they paid Sheffield for the half back - why because the club told everyone that was less than 6 months ago - they didn't have an issue telling everyone how much they paid for Iestyn either

I didn't say that but the fact you can only remember one player (20 years!!) before Aston kind of reinforces my point, doesn't it?

Re: £250.000/strictly confidential : Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:11 pm  

William Eve wrote:

Which part of Him's "The main point anyway was about ensuring NRL clubs have to pay some kind of fee and have to directly negotiate with SL clubs and my response to his post do you have a problem with exactly?

Ah, one person then and I bet even he doesn't really care whether it's the player or the club who've paid.

But anyway, please make sure you mention Him when ranting about this for the next decade, like you inevitably will, won't you. TIA

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:12 pm  

rhino65 wrote:

The rumours on the Sharks forum is that Leeds have received roughly half of the original asking price.

That can't be true.
Someone on the Leeds forum said it was only £50k.

Re: £250.000/strictly confidential : Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:21 pm  

loiner81 wrote:

GH has made the point that players will not be able to just walk out on contracts. Segeyaro has had no pre season, missed the start of the NRL season, and doesn't even have a contract with another club yet, plus he will have had no income for the last 3/4 months.

Obviously we have got nowhere near the £250,000 asking price, which is why it's been kept confidential. It sounds like it could be Segeyaro buying himself, rather than Cronulla. The true figure is probably in the region of £50,000

According to your mate, Segeyaro has been training with Cronulla all along and getting paid so that he won't be living off BBBBs.

I agree that the fee is likely to be around 50K. Could be less, but very doubtful it would be more than that. And the fee will be coming from Segeyaro.

Way too much negative PR has been generated by this episode as alluded to earlier by Superted which does the club no favours in terms of any future recruitment drive from overseas.

Re: Player | James Segeyaro : Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:22 pm  

It woz £50,000.

No, it was half wot GH asked for - £125,000!

Do we have any more unsubstantiated bids?

Re: £250.000/strictly confidential : Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:27 pm  

William Eve wrote:

According to your mate, Segeyaro has been training with Cronulla all along and getting paid so that he won't be living off BBBBs.

I agree that the fee is likely to be around 50K. Could be less, but very doubtful it would be more than that. And the fee will be coming from Segeyaro.

Way too much negative PR has been generated by this episode as alluded to earlier by Superted which does the club no favours in terms of any future recruitment drive from overseas.

I'm not sure that it is "negative PR" I think we have allowed players to move on in the past when it wasn't working for them. But that wasn't what happened in this case, IMO. He used us as a banker, in case he couldn't get himself a gig in the NRL. The club didn't roll over on it and if that action disuades other from joining us who ideally would rather not be with the club, how is that a bad outcome?