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.

^ Das it

May be another way to stem the potential problem of contracts being effectively worthless, would to be to fine the club signing a player who was walking out on his contract?

WHAT??!! Hall wants to go to Wigan??!!

Or implement minimum transfer fees payable if the clubs can't agree. The transfer fee would depend on length of contract, status of player

Eg current international, regular first team player, bit player etc. There would be anomalies to overcome but it may set a standard.

There should however be fines for clubs enticing a player to breach his contract.

I get that whole point, though I feel there is a fundamental difference between someone walking out mid-contract or mid-season, to someone changing their mind on a contract within weeks and before they've actually began any of their contractual obligations.

Each case should be decided on merit, and in this instance I feel it would have been better to simply wash our hands of him. It's wasted time and effort for little value and I feel makes the club look like they lack compassion given the timescales of the wish to renege.

And, whilst it's the first time my views have ever been called lefty (something which I am far from), I do feel we should just let the bloke crack on with his life rather than making it difficult for no real gain.

I like the idea, to make it fairer and more consistent, I'd base it as a set percentage of the remaining value of the players contract. That way if the club have offered the security of a long term contract to the player, they get a larger pay out if he leaves early. Likewise if player is in his last year, it's a relatively low fee.

I am sure that under normal circumstances a club would probably give a player a few ' cooling off days '. In fact like we did when he first joined us on 23rd June. He had until the 1st September to decide whether he was staying or leaving.

He choose to stay and then became ' homesick ' after finding out another club in the NRL would be interested in him if he could get a release from his contract with the Rhinos.

This is not homesickness or bad decision, just pure greed.

I mentioned homesickness and its links to depression not so long ago which all appear to characterise some of the impulsive behaviours displayed by Segeyaro since last year. This led to him ending up on the outer at Penrith and swapping places with Hardaker.

Some of the psychiatric experts in here claimed that was a load of crap because he's selfish and taking the pee, etc.

His father died last year who he was very close to. That may explain why he's where he is at mentally and emotionally right now. He's been all over the place ever since.

I hope my views don't come across as too "leftist" for the likes of illy.

Leeds should let it go and move on. It's not a good look otherwise.

Or a mixture of both - the Sharks were only able to make him an offer after the 1st Sept deadline had passed. Don't get me wrong, I think Segeyaro is 100% in the wrong, if he was that bothered, he shouldn't have agreed to stay and hung on in the hope of an NRL deal. But that doesn't change my view on what Leeds should do.

Apologies: I meant to say his father died year before last, above.

I don't think he will man-up anytime soon.

So much for RL Cares both here and in the NRL.

What a load of Bull**** posted on here . Top and bottom was he was happy here , happy to sign a contract having had plenty of time to think about it , returned home and was offered a better deal so then and only then threw the homesick card into the fray . Either get a reasonable fee for him or let him rot .

I am not coming down on either is the right way, but you have just posted utter rubbish yourself.

We got him because we were desperate at the time, would pay the money, and he was available, without being able to play for an NRL club at that time, lucky us. He came, he played, and he saved our season. He even already had it in his head that if an NRL club came in for him that he had the option to return immediately. No club came in at that point, and he was still in this country, so it appears he agreed to go with a longer contract. Upon returning to Australia he then was offered the opportunity at an NRL club who in change of circumstances they had a space, which he was open about was his preferred option, and here we are. I doubt very much he is on more money, but who knows.

I wonder if you'd have had these views had Leeds just let him go, without a fight.
On second thoughts, no I don't. We all know the answer to that one.

You said it all there , he happily signed a contract with us and then when a better offer came along decided to break it . Sorry pal that does not wash with me , Leeds could not have legally cancelled his contract so it works both ways .

I can relate to and accept both points of view. All employers should look to treat employees fairly and look for amicable solutions when things don't work out. But on the other hand employees have to give consideration to the impact of their actions on their employers business. As has been said at some point GH and the Rhinos should let him go whether or not we get a fee. But for now I think a little time sat on his hands whilst we try to salvage some compensation is fair enough and good for the game. Contracts are important, plans are made on the basis of a signed understanding. If Segeyaro had doubts about staying then he shouldn't have signed. Once he signed he should have stayed, at least for this year, unless we could find a replacement. If contracts can be signed and discarded with no consequences, then chaos will ensue. But as I said earlier the clubs and governing bodies in sport have a massive part to play in ensuring stability.