Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:27 am  

Biff Tannen wrote:

Good, who wants a player that doesn't really want to play for the club?

'Do whatever makes you happy! Not what makes others happy!' James Segeyaro

I agree James, but maybe Should have thought of that after you lied and said you loved it at the club and put pen to paper on a two year deal, before wiping your aris with it!

Make him squirm if you ask me.

Not really the way to endear your club to potential future employees though, is it?

Did you see how they treated Segeyaro?

I'm not interested in playing under that kind of culture.

Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:33 am  

William Eve wrote:

Not really the way to endear your club to potential future employees though, is it?

Did you see how they treated Segeyaro?

I'm not interested in playing under that kind of culture.

Do we want to be signing players who will only sign for us if they are confident they can leave at any time without consequence?

Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:40 am  

He's basically blown a £175,000 a year salary.

Go him.

Don't let the door hit you on the vagina on your way out.

Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:41 am  

William Eve wrote:

Not really the way to endear your club to potential future employees though, is it?

Did you see how they treated Segeyaro?

I'm not interested in playing under that kind of culture.

What? a culture that won't allow players to turn their backs on a player who has just signed a contract committing themselves to the club?

If a player thinks that that is being unfair maybe we don't want that kind of player at the club anyway.

Bottom line is, this kind of thing needs addressing and if that takes us digging our heels in on this to get something put in place for the greater good of the game then so be it, i'm all for it.

Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:45 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Do we want to be signing players who will only sign for us if they are confident they can leave at any time without consequence?

Absolutely not, but what concerns me is the reputation the club has for retribution, recrimination, hostility, malevolence... etc... as is being displayed currently by the CEO and the coach, yet again!

I know of no other club which has been so antagonistic, threatened or participated in as many legal actions, slapped so many transfer fees on players.

All this is indicative of an authoritarian management culture at the club armed with a nasty streak if anyone should dare to not tow the line. Not including obvious player exceptions of course who display the required level of loyalty demanded, without question.

Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:48 am  

Biff Tannen wrote:

What? a culture that won't allow players to turn their backs on a player who has just signed a contract committing themselves to the club?

If a player thinks that that is being unfair maybe we don't want that kind of player at the club anyway.

Bottom line is, this kind of thing needs addressing and if that takes us digging our heels in on this to get something put in place for the greater good of the game then so be it, i'm all for it.

The club has way too much previous in regard to contractual disputes.

The common denominator being the CEO himself.

Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:52 am  

William Eve wrote:

Absolutely not, but what concerns me is the reputation the club has for retribution, recrimination, hostility, malevolence... etc... as is being displayed currently by the CEO and the coach, yet again!

I know of no other club which has been so antagonistic, threatened or participated in as many legal actions, slapped so many transfer fees on players.

All this is indicative of an authoritarian management culture at the club armed with a nasty streak if anyone should dare to not tow the line. Not including obvious player exceptions of course who display the required level of loyalty demanded, without question.

Perhaps it's also why we lose fewer players to other codes and leagues.

Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:52 am  

krisleeds wrote:

He's basically blown a £175,000 a year salary.

Go him.

Don't let the door hit you on the vagina on your way out.

Whilst I like most don't agree with how Solomona left Cas at least he's trying to join a club that really want him and were prepared to offer big money for him.

Segeyaro on the other hand should've considered whether the club interested really wanted him that badly....they clearly don't. Seems he was just fully expecting Leeds to just release him and not want a fee and didn't for a second consider that option.

Exactly why it's been worth Leeds digging their heels in on this if it stops others just thinking the same thing.

Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:53 am  

William Eve wrote:

The club has way too much previous in regard to contractual disputes.

The common denominator being the CEO himself.

We will see how it plays out. I expect, like you i assume, the old 'undisclosed fee' will be wheeled out sometime early January. Something along the lines of being 'a fair deal all round' even though we all know it will be next to nowt.

Re: James Segeyaro : Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:05 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Perhaps it's also why we lose fewer players to other codes and leagues.

Is there that many players worth losing in today's climate? We haven't produced much talent for years. The threat from the NRL or Union has always been over-exaggerated.

If it was that great at Leeds, Segeyaro would be looking forward to returning for the remaining two years of his contract and possibly beyond. He doesn't like it here, he never has liked it, so it's time to move on quickly for both club and player.

I've always had my doubts about signing him in the first place. There was a reluctance on his part to join the club from the very beginning, as if he was hanging around for an offer... any offer from any NRL club... last season. He was that desperate to stay in Australia.

His positive words about joining Leeds and how great it is over here is not necessarily lying. It is typical of the mindset of someone who is desperate to convince themselves they've made the right choice when in fact, at the time, it was Hobson's Choice which is no choice at all, unless retirement was an option.

Time to end this dreary confrontation by the club and get on with Plan B, whatever that might be. We've seen this all before and we all know how it ends.

Now where's that undisclosed fee for the umpteenth time?