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

pearson wasn't happy that o'connor had conflicting intrests and the rfls handling of it, will try and dig it out, sure it was in one of the rugby papers when the deal was announced

Same here. The response is pretty angry and I wonder if he should have calmed down, thought, counted to ten and then made his statement. He clearly has a pretty big axe to grind, but softly softly and all that.

No problem with him asking to meet the new chairman, or sticking his two penn'orth in as to how RL should be run, but I think he should have kept his counsel a bit, as Coddy says.

As I've posted elsewhere, I have a feeling that there were some other issues - not in the public domain - that he wanted to test at the tribunal. He may have expected to lose given that he clearly has no trust for the RFL or their processes, but felt that he should put the case forward anyway.

I have to say that I was a little uneasy about the clear conflict of interest regarding the Widnes vote myself. Still - if enough chairmen had shared that unease they would have voted against the deal.

So another Gobby owner/chairman gets made to look foolish and still stamps his feet and out goes the Teddy.
As for the snipes at GH and his influence at the RFL by the few on here you clowns would love a Chairman who knows what he's doing and how to build a successful RL Club and Team.
Also "BigBrother" you need to add the 0's to your post because if you think your lot will be the top team and we on the way down in 2 to 3 years you need to lay off the jamaican roll ups and not let your pathetic jealousy get in the way of posting anything with substance.

Thats a key point. Pearson was shouting from the rooftops about how the player was tapped up and said Agar was a key part of it so why has nothing been mentioned of this?

Good to see some quality contributions from our West Yorkshire friends.

What type of compensation was Pearson after? was it the one were if a player is under a certain age his old club is automatically entitled to it like football?

Lets draw a line under the previous management structure and move on. This happened under the radar of the new structure. It wont happen again. (?)

“Hull FC will endeavour to ensure no further young talent is poached from the club and this objective will be helped by not having such close liaisons with other competing Super League clubs"

Haven't you just merged junior development with Rovers?