Key word WAS......that WAS before he opened his mouth and said he wouldn't return.

"Allegedly"? Clear cut then?

Is that when the club may have told him to return earlier than Jan 3rd, 2017 according to your fertile imagination?

Leeds invited offers from the NRL for Segeyaro on 5th Dec, 2016 when GH placed a £250,000 transfer valuation on him.

[url=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/all-nine-sydney-clubs-pass-on-hooker-james-segeyaro-and-his-whopping-425000-transfer-fee/news-story/35a2258c1303994cfd972fc1975dc8a3[i[uIt is understood[/u[/url Leeds terminated Segeyaro’s contract once he formally alerted them he would not return to England. He was expected back for pre-season training in the new year.
[/i

Regards,
CHRISTIAN NICOLUSSI, Rugby League, The Daily Telegraph
December 6, 2016 7:24am
Who does like to begin sentences with "It is understood..."

Ain't that right, Illy?

Yes and that was a couple of weeks after he said he wouldn't return.

This is Ayoub's argument...

'Segeyaro claims he doesn’t require a release from Leeds, because he technically doesn’t have a contract with the English club for 2017.

The hooker agreed to a two-deal extension with the Rhinos in September, but it’s understood these negotiations were not finalised.

Segeyaro’s management claim Leeds haven’t notified the RFL about Segeyaro’s uncompleted deal and are playing hard ball over parting ways.

“We will go through the appropriate channels to resolve the issue but we are totally confident that James is not contracted to Leeds in 2017,’’ Segeyaro’s agent Sam Ayoub said.'

So, just to confirm the exact window regarding your fertile imagination.

Segeyaro announces on 26 Nov, 2016 that he's not returning to Leeds.
GH announces on 5 Dec, 2016 that Segeyaro is available for transfer for a fee of £250K.

Therefore, the club may have told Segeyaro to return to the club early during that 9 day window above, but he didn't return early, and certainly not by the 5 Dec, 2016, hence the termination of his contract, yes?

We can bin Jan 3rd, 2017 as an irrelevance then?

OK.

If you say so

Anyhow, whatever happens, none of this appears clear cut or slam dunk to me.

But then again, I don't profess to be a lawyer on these contractal matters of employment.

An undisclosed fee announcement would be very welcome in terms of moving on

No we just shouldn't make out that it was some sort of concrete date that wasn't subject to change given the circumstances........not unless you're trying to troll and find fault with Leeds for everything.....oh wait it's you.

There's nothing concrete about your fertile imagination regarding some other earlier imaginary date Segeyaro may have been told to return by. The only concrete evidence is that he was due to return on Jan 3rd, 2017 and there are umpteen references to that date.

Let's see what happens if the case goes to court or employment tribunal.

A more clear cut case would have involved terminating his contract on Jan 4th, 2017, once it was clear he wasn't returning as he was contracted to do.

I know there's nothing concrete about him being asked to return early....that's why I said it was a POSSIBILITY, that the mere suggestion bothered you is you problem.

The January 3rd date will have just been one verbally agreed upon anyway, seriously doubt that date was in his contract so the idea Leeds couldn't terminate before then is silly.

The undisclosed fee would be preferable. A defeat wouldn't break Leeds, nor Segeyaro's agent, nor his solicitor. It might just ruin him though. Though of course he could win.

See William's lost it again.

All the dates are an irrelevance. If both Leeds and Segeyaro wanted to honour the contract, even now, they could. Its not even a contract issue.

But Segeyaro isnt suing Leeds for breach of contract, nor unpaid wages, likely because he doesnt have much of an argument. In fact Ayoub is arguing the complete opposite, that Segeyaro wasnt contracted at all.

Seems a little nonsensical from Ayoub to be honest, nobody is arguing for the enforcement of the contract, it is accepted by all parties to have ended. Ayoub's argument seems to be that when Segeyaro agreed to be registered as a Leeds player until 2018, he shouldnt have been registered as a Leeds player until 2018.

Ayoub's biggest problem is that the NRL wont register Segeyaro not because of Leeds contract with him (after all, everyone accepts this no longer is applicable), but because the RFL have him registered as a Leeds player, for the RFL to register him as a Leeds player Leeds must submit a registration form, as must Segeyaro. This would be in contravention of RLIF regulations. Ayoub is claiming that the RFL must transfer a registration he is also arguing doesnt exist.

On top of Ayoub's argument demanding the RFL needing to transfer a registration he is also arguing doesnt exist, his further problem is that there are processes and procedures a player must follow to be declared a free agent. Processes it is impossible for him to have followed (because he is a registered Leeds player with the RFL). So not only will Ayoub need to prove that Segeyaro had no playing contract with Leeds, he will need to prove Segeyaro's registration that the NRL want transfered doesnt exist, he will then need to explain why he has been negotiating with clubs despite not following the process to have himself registered as a free agent.

Once he has done all that, he will need to hope the RFL don't refuse the transfer on their 'catch-all' clause of a reasonable belief that doing so would bring the game in to disrepute.

Ayoub's problem is more fundamental than the precise ins and outs. Its that he thought it was all straightforward - Segeyaro calls 'homesick', Leeds fold and release him, and Segeyaro signs with whoever he wants. No contract mess, no registration issues. Anything Ayoub tried or tries to do is in real strife once Leeds decided not to play ball.

Added to that is the fact that the RFL has realised it has to stand firm as well with the Solomona issue at the same time. So they've grown a backbone, and the NRL has seen some similar issues (threats of players going to NFL, Semi Radrada etc) which all in all make it a very bad time to try to get everyone to play nice for the sake of Segeyaro.

If Ayoub's story was true then why isn't Segeyaro a Cronulla player now? It's been over two months since Segeyaro said he wanted out, surely enough time to prove that the contract hadn't been completed like he claims?

Exactly my thought printer, if it was all fine and dandy for chicko to sign for cronulla as per Ayoub's understanding then why isn't he? Surely cronulla would've signed him up for free in a heart beat if that was the case. But it isn't they will have had their club lawyers examine his contract and realise that Ayoub's understanding is not reality.

Also, to register a player with the rlf won't they need to see his playing contract? If he's registered to us, he's clearly contracted to us.

A quick google of Sam Ayoub tells you how dodgy he is.

The other party which shouldn't get a free pass on this are the Sharks. Assuming Leeds' contract is valid, they had no right to even talk to him about moving, let alone (apparently) letting him train with them. Oddly enough they want him, just not enough to want to pay a fee.

Why would they? Usually the homesick card is played, the club can't keep an unhappy, salary cap eating player, club releases player who then joins the NRL team.

Been happening for years. NRL teams transfer fees come out of their cap money does it not? Why pay when the target usually has a better than average chance of wriggling out for nowt?

In addition to any fee being counted on the salary cap, in the NRL the clubs have to pay an extra 50% of whatever tthe transfer fee is to the NRLs welfare fund - so a £200k fee becomes £300k. It's just not going to happen.

I'm still of the opinion we should let him go and move on - we're sorted with Parcell and ultimately this is a young blokes life that's being screwed up - albeit because of his own mistakes/decisions. Life is too short, and a rugby league players career is too short to waste time on arguements of 'principle', particularly when you consider he wanted to backflip only weeks after signing, and before he was due back. It hardly had a massive impact on Leeds (only the same as if he'd said he was leaving before the 1st Sept deadline).

Move on gracefully and play the 'better man' would be my approach - appreciate others will feel differently, but I think that's acting on emotion and pride rather than what's the best way to move forward.

I respect that stance, & actually agree with it all, if this was an isolated incident. The problem is the message it sends about contracts in general in RL. That is why Leeds, Castleford & the RFL must stand firm or effectively send out a joint press release that contracts are only valid as long as both parties agree that they are. Do you think Sam Ayoub would be inactive if Leeds decided, after September 1st 2016, that they didn't need Segayaro & terminated his contract?

Completely see that point of view on the wider issue of contracts in Super League, and of course Ayoub would kick off in those circumstances, but I would say the club is bigger than 1 player, and can afford the odd loss of a player who doesn't want to be here, certainly much more than a young bloke can afford to write of a seasons earnings.

I suppose ultimately I'm of he view that life is more important than rugby league - let him go and live the life he wants. Ultimately, we've got a replacement but are still holding a young bloke to task over a point of principle - doing this could have massive implications on his life - it's just not worth it in my opinion.

The problem with this leftist stance is:

Joel Moon wants to move on with his life in London
Callum Watkins wants to move on with his life in Salford
Ryan Hall wants to move on with his life in Wigan
Matt Parcell wants to move on with his life in Toronto.

Can you see the problem here with not enforcing the employment contract, total and utter anarchy with clubs and the paying supporter not knowing who plays for the clubs week in week out.

IF THEY DON'T WANT TO BE TIED TO A CLUB FOR 1, 2,3 YEARS THEN DON'T SIGN A CONTRACT.

Anyway remember what Chicko said, It's all about his happiness and that is more important than rugby and MONEY.
Answer to that is if you wish to play in the next two seasons then take a pay cut and pay the transfer fee out of your new contract.