not really, when you've been around a bit longer you'll realise that I don't really give a monkey's what most other fans think, let alone a sad case from L**ds who probably only started going once you finally started winning stuff, as the sone goes "where were you when you were #@it?"

but keep trolling, it gives me something to read whilst listening to the William Hill podcast.

That being the case, it seems very odd to accuse Leeds of any wrong doing.

they were, from what I have read and heard, making approaches to a player whilst under contract, that is tapping up in anyones book, I guess AP has confidence in his case, he's not daft.

Maybe because the people offering him didn't own or have anything to do with Hull FC anymore?

If your gonna pull him up for his spelling at least get yours right. Sone???

Not to a player out of contract that season after September the 1st it isnt.

Why would that be illegal?

Because contracts regarding youngsters are different, the approach came before Sept. 1st anyway.

Seems strange then that nobody has mentioned it. There is a clear procedure, completely different from this one, which Hull can go down to report a club for tapping up a player prior to that deadline. That isnt a procedure they have gone down. The procedure they seem to be going down, from all available information, is a complaint that the current system hasnt given a fair valuation to Briscoe. Though i think it will be very difficult for the RFL or Hull FC to prove a new valuation structure after the fact.

In fact, nothing Pearson has said, accuses Leeds of anything. Nothing he says actually states what the complaint is apart from the fact Briscoe wasnt tied up as he wanted him to be.

Seems obvious that the RFL would not be going to the trouble and expense of a tribunal unless compelling evidence of a breach of rules had been presented. Whether it's compelling enough to find Leeds guilty is what the tribunal is to determine. The phone records evidence was referenced at the fans forum. Phone records can include text messages as well, perhaps at critical points in both teams' seasons.

Pearson hasn't stated the purpose of the tribunal, the fact the RFL are holding one indicates there is at least something to look at, time will tell.

Exactly. He hasnt made any kind of accusation of wrongdoing. He seems very clear on the blame for it being allowed to happen lies with the incompetence (whether wilfull or not) of the previous board.

This isnt the process for an approach prior to the deadline, it seems there is another accusation he is making but i cant see where the blame for that would lie with Leeds.

I think, personally, that he is heading down the "conflict of interests" route, but we shall see, eventually.

Thought all along insider trading as it is a company that Adam just bought !

Then stabed in back by same people in more ways than one.

Trolling?? Hardly.

You'd be wrong on all counts Im afraid, lifelong leeds fan here,

There when messyrs Caddick & Hetherington saved us from the depths and brought us to where we are now



However, were all anonymous amongst these boards unfortunately so guess youll just have to take my word for it

I've tried asking the question on your board but no luck with any replies yet, just general slating of our club and fans. So, let's be a bit grown up about it, and have your response, without emoticons and posturing if you can manage:
If there is no evidence of anything untoward, and the signing of Briscoe by Leeds was a simple approach made at the appropriate time without conflict of interest, why are the RFL wasting their time on a tribunal?

Did Kath have an interest in Hull FC when Briscoe signed?

Insider trading is something completely different and not something the RFL (of all people) would investigate.

So, seriously, why have the RFL sanctioned a tribunal if no evidence of a transgression has been brought to their attention?

The only person who has mentioned tribunal is Pearson, the RFL havent released anything!

I have no idea of the timings of various events, nor who was in what position to make decisions etc.

As has been said, no smoke, no fire.

So you are saying Pearson is lying about it in his programme notes to the supporters, making it up on a whim and hoping no one notices when it's exposed as a fabrication? Wow.

As I have said, Mr Pearson seems very clear (and probably sensibly knowing Sir Gary's litigious nature

) that his complaint is with the previous administration and not with Leeds, he has singularly avoided levelling any type of explicit or implicit accusation of wrongdoing at Leeds and seems to be explicitly accusing the former administration and implicitly absolving Leeds of blame. I think his complaint is less at the behavior of Leeds and more at the valuation of Briscoe through the standard youth valuation system with the added benefit of a chance to publicly claim vengeance on the previous administration.

I think the Tribunal will be setting a valuation on Briscoe, not judging on any disciplinary charges at Leeds because none have been levelled.

We would know what charges Leeds were accused of if the tribunal would be judging them

Pearson isn't a respected individual worth 5 times more than Garr... hang on, HE IS.