Don't hold your breath waiting for anything public.

Oh yes.

I've used this before in a slightly different context, but the RFL's inept and outdated polyester-clad buffoons heralding the Stobart deal are scarily similar to Vic and Bob's characters, Councillors Cox and Evans, brightening up the seafront at Aldington-on-Sea with celebrity litter bins.

I suspect that having several million invested in a SL club kind of buys AP the right to make his point in any way he chooses. You may disagree with how he's done it but I think his judgement might be that "going through the normal channels" tends to result in dead ends where the RFL is concerned particularly when certain participants use them. Alternative tactics are clearly in play. Some might see those new tactics not as a "hissy fit" but instead the beginnings of a challenge to the RFL that states that the status quo is no longer acceptable to the likes of AP and others who appear at the moment to be propping the game up financially.

I'm just glad we have an owner with the guts to challenge the status quo.
The RFL have never done us any favours by playing the game & keeping quiet, so what have we got to lose?.
If the RFL had anything about them they would be picking AP's brains for the development of the game, rather than pandering to Gary Hetherington.

Who where the clubs that didn't vote for the Stobart sponsorship?

i know both fc and kr didn't

Coxy! Yer hair!

Pritt stick

Everyone here appears to think Pearson has achieved more in sports management than Gary Hetherington and is better qualified to "advise" the RFL how to run the game. Curious.

Everyone?

This is a good point. Keeping our heads down has got us nowhere over the years so maybe a different tack is required. If there really is a mood of discontent among some of the SL chairmen, as seems to be the case from recent comments, then perhaps something can be achieved.

If you're saying that Hetherington is qualified and has indeed been advising the rfl then based on their performance I would say my cat would be better qualified than him.....so AP has a fair chance of bringing more to the table!

Several million?

Really?

I think the clubs who supported the Stobart deal were Warrington, Wigan, St Helens, Catalans, Leeds, Widnes, London and Huddersfield.

Whilst I believe the ones voting against were Hull, Hull KR, Wakefield, Castleford, Salford and Bradford.

Which set of clubs would you want to be associated with?

our own ?

Glad AP has come out so strongly, the important thing for us now is what happens in the future and no to hold on to the past. Briscoe has gone, KH has gone and we have better things to concentrate on.

Sorry, can't be bothered to read 12 pages. I've read the first few and the last do apologies if I'm repeating anything already discussed.


Pearson talks about 3 offers being on the table. Were all of these lower than his previous contract?

As for the Stobart deal, I thought I read in the League Express that 5 clubs voted against, 5 voted for, 3 abstained and the RFL cast Catalans vote by proxy (thus effectively choosing the sponsorship option they wanted).

Well thats the question, If they did it will end up back in court.

The question i would be asking Adam Pearson is that if he made Luke Briscoe 3 formal offers, presumably each one exceeded the previous. Yet, the final offer was still lower than the 1 year part time contract that he was currently on. What was he thinking would happen?

A great but bizarre post , I loved them 2 clowns ! " Nicely proposed Coxy " " A helicopter landing pad for Bruno Brookes"

LEST we for get the biggest shafting of all time to our Club : LEE JACKSON tsfer to Sheffield

Check out that beauty and see how the Heth clan colluded with the RFL valuation team to value an old Andy Dannatt at 80k and then Jacko in his young prime, a month later and just made Man of the Series against the Aussies in 1991 , at 83k . I remember Kath saying she was glad it was 83k as that was the most the eagles could have paid. Funny that .....

21 years later ........................

Quote ="Wellsy13"As for the Stobart deal, I thought I read in the League Express that 5 clubs voted against, 5 voted for, 3 abstained and the RFL cast Catalans vote by proxy (thus effectively choosing the sponsorship option they wanted).'" No the voting for the Stobart deal was by 9 votes to 5 (I presume Salford from those I listed previously voted for the deal as well). www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... -deal.html

Quote ="Wellsy13"As for the Stobart deal, I thought I read in the League Express that 5 clubs voted against, 5 voted for, 3 abstained and the RFL cast Catalans vote by proxy (thus effectively choosing the sponsorship option they wanted).'" No the voting for the Stobart deal was by 9 votes to 5 (I presume Salford from those I listed previously voted for the deal as well). www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyl ... -deal.html

The first offer was lower then his current contract which in itself is unbelievable for a highly rated player and this offer meant that the regulations were adhered to when a better offer came in from Leeds.

Subsequent offers although still relevant do not change the rules back in our favour.

Pearson wanted to make a noise about it because he clearly thinks insider dealing has shafted our club on this occasion and I tend to agree with him.

So, without trawling back through the whole thread, was the first offer made by the previous administration?