[url=http://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/news/article/480/10740926/-[u"He terminated that contract by failing to return to the club [Jan 3rd 2017 but he remains on our register and on the transfer list,"[/u[/url Hetherington added.

Always possible the club asked him to return early from his break given the media storm his story made. They made Hardaker return to preseason early after the 2013 WC.

Was that before or after GH signed Matt Parcell?



Date Parcell signing was officially announced... Dec 21st, 2016.
Date Segeyaro was due back... Jan 3rd, 2017.

"[iHe [Segeyaro terminated that contract by failing to return to the club [Jan 3rd, 2017 but he remains on our register and on the transfer list,"[/i - GH (24th Jan, 2017)

Yes and as I pointed out they may well have asked him to return early.

The products of your fertile imagination does not equate to pointing anything out.

[i"He [Segeyaro terminated that contract by failing to return to the club [Jan 3rd, 2017 but he remains on our register and on the transfer list,"[/i - GH (24th Jan, 2017)

CHRISTIAN NICOLUSSI, The Daily Telegraph December 6, 2016 12:04am

Segeyaro told The Sunday Telegraph nine days ago he was homesick and had no intention of returning to Leeds next month, despite being contracted until the end of 2018. ( SUNDAY 27th NOVEMBER ).

It’s understood Segeyaro’s management has already written to Leeds, informing them the 26-year-old will not return.

If this is the case then Slam Dunk another legal victory. All this was done long before the wages were stopped and replacement player signed.

as many times as you like but it doesn't once feature in that article you linked to so pointless you including it in a quote from it.

I hope the above is not an alternative fact, if so the matter would appear to be pretty clear cut.

[uIs it understood[/u to not be so, and therefore pretty clear cut?

You can keep claiming that the club may have issued an ultimatum that Segeyaro return earlier than Jan 3rd 2017 as many times as you like, but it'll still be nothing more than a product of your fertile imagination.

Jan 3rd 2017 was when Segeyaro was due to return.

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.