Come now, you've been reading the boards for some time - you should be aware that Smokey knows everything about everything and is never wrong.

The only thing embarrassing about it is that we let a young talent from our club get poached by a rival club. AP is clearly very annoyed about the whole thing.

Don't be stupid Smokey.

he knew the fairly clear, concise and unambigious, longstanding rule which meant he was likely to lose

Did he know about this rule and did he know he hadn't offered LB a better deal?

Ap knows that leeds, gary,kath,agar,rule have stitched us up on this one, the very fact agar named him 18th man in the play off game was his parting shot

Leeds and gary in paticular have had too much influence on the rfl for many years now

But in AP i have total faith the guy is honest as they come and says it as it is, he will not rest until we have passed leeds on our way back to the top, it may take 2-3 years we will get there and boy will it be sweet, to laugh at you arrogannt f@@kers from leeds,i can honestly say ive never known such smug fans and it really did take the pi$$ on friday when the southstand were the fatboy with the drum has to get you going started booing the ref, maybe if you took your tinted glasses off you will reralise you get more calls going your way than anyother team, and i for one cant wait to watch your fall

hetherington has too much influence on the game pearson knows that and wants that changed!

The SL Chairmen voted on which of the sponsorship offers sourced by IMG they wanted.

Utterly ridiculous to blame the RFL for it.

I thought the comments previously were about Kath and the previous board/admin. What precisely did he say about Hetherington?

Ok maybe I gave him too much credit. I would be very surprised if he took up the case and pushed it towards tribunal without first reading the rules where this clear, unambiguous, and longstanding rule is.

I would think it would reflect worse on him that he didn’t know the rules and that he didn’t know he hadn’t followed them.

I think in the choice between bitter and incompetent Hull fans would be hoping he was bitter.

not all sl chairman voted for it! yet they still chose that deal against the wishes of half the clubs owners

So the later part of your post was you guessing and trying to pass it off as fact.

I love the way you're all leaping to AP's defence. Don't you feel even slightly cheated that the majority of you on these boards backed him to win this case despite the fact that he "fully expected this predictable outcome".

All these angry Hull fans foaming at the mouth at any mention of 'L**ds' are so cute.

And in 4 pages all debate has gone.

Compared to Kath she was.

Am I alon in thinking that Pearson would have been better keeping a little more of his own counsel on this matter? It certainly seem like sour grapes to my reading of the statement.

Are they?

Do you want to point them out to us?

There was a majority in favour of the Stobart deal - admittedly a narrow one but that's the way voting works. Unless something happened at that meeting that's not in the public domain I'm not sure what AP is going on about TBH.

we will see in a few years when luke briscoe will either be playing 1st team for the rhinos or for york!

Coming from you



I posted just about the only fact on this thread so far.

if i remember catalan waved their right to vote and the widnes chairman did his part to push the deal through

Nope. Can't see the point TBH, and if we really did offer lower contracts to Briscoe then I fail to see why we took anything to a tribunal - unless there was something else going on that we thought might swing the tribunal our way. For instance, if we had evidence that the other party also broke some rules...

You know somehow I expected a playground response. Glad you didn't disappoint me.

Neither of which constitutes the RFL making the choice.

It was an assumption based on me not thinking that Adam Pearson lacks the competency and intelligence needed to switch on a computer or open a book. Maybe I was wrong, maybe Pearson is that incompetent to have involved himself and your club in a tribunal process against another member club without doing even the minimum research and then launched in to a hissy fit when someone pointed out to him the blindingly obvious flaw in his case.

As I say, I gave him the credit that he had launched the claim knowing he was going to lose in a strange way of making some yet to be determined point, but if you think he was too stupid to either A) bother to check the rules, or B) understand them, then im not going to argue with you