Dont see what the problem is with a chairman commenting on issues which could only be for the good of the game? Why should teams favoured by the rfl be given the green light to poach players from a poorer team trying to develop itslelf fairly? Why should the rfl agree to a sponorship deal which 50% of clubs did not agree with and most sensible people do either? From the outside looking in it gives the impression the rfl are more intrested in looking after itself as a business and the clubs that make it richer than what is best for the game as a whole!

No, it was the way it was delivered.

Why make any point of his non attendance at all IF his CEO has indeed gone along?

There is no 'IF' as he does indeed attend.

That's my job, as well you know JB

No, that is not what I said. I said that after he has left the club, they have then gone on to a higher level that they could not sustain. Pearson got them to a high level that is sustainable at the time, and the new owners have attempted to take them further than they were ready to.

City are in a similar position now to when Pearson left. They then went on to the Premier League under new owners who took the "all or bust" method, and went up sh*ts creek.

Ian Lenagan now added to ever growing list

And strangely, over something which is obviously Wigan Warriors fault and not the RFLs. The RFL's verbal bitchslap of Wigan is nice to see though.

I smell a breakaway wafting towards my nostrils.

with the idiocy of some SL chairmen it wouldnt surprise me.
But the RFL are a pretty convenient scapegoat for some SL chairmen at the moment, if they did break away, who would they be able to blame for their failings then?

They'd setup a new league separate in many ways from the rest of rugby league, formed on a basis where major decisions such as new rules & regulations, promotion & relegation criteria and decisions on sponsorship etc are taken by a vote of the clubs, hire a competent, intelligent, southerner to run it, then, when they spend more money than they are receiving from income, blame it all on said southerner.

I know they could call it a "SuperLeague"!

I'm not sure what the RFL could do. By dint of fate, they were drawn at home, the broadcaster wanted the game on a certain day, and it's their own stadium that the problem is with on that day. Should the RFL tell the BBC they can't pick what they want to show?

R.Haggety asked what went on .

Well young Bristoe was offered a reduced contract as Uncle Kath and Co was selling up .
Pearson takes over offers better contract but Leeds know about first one that makes him [Bristoe a free agent,

Any other buisness would class this as insider dealing.

Plenty of other people have been asked for evidence of this and none has been provided, so has some evidence been found to back this up?

Any other business would have been taken to court for libel by now with some of Adam Pearson's comments.

I'd hazard a guess that you're asking the wrong people. It's been reported that the club have some evidence - including messages left on the 'phone system at the KC and/or emails - but it's highly unlikely that anyone who posts on here has access to it.


You might want to have a think about why that hasn't happened.

No I'm not, I'm asking the people who are going around saying that that is what happened.
Has it been reported? Or rumoured? Big difference. It's also highly unlikely that anyone who was involved with "insider trading" would do so using the KC phone or email system.

Probably because Pearson hasn't gone quite so far as to specifically accuse one person or organisation, but his inferences were quite clear. Also the recent tribunal kind of shows it was all a load of bollllocks anyway.

Or that the tribunal was a joke and the system needs looking into.

I'm sorry, but there has to be more to it. Nobody would take it this far and this public if there was nothing in it. And it's not like Hetherington is afraid to sue anyone, so if Pearson has said libellous things then surely he'd get the solicitors out by now?

But he had a go at the system not at auntie kath directly. I am sure if he had accused her of deliberately offering an artificially low contract in order to allow a rival club a free shot then he would find himself with a lawyers letter.

If you're going to ask everyone on a forum for evidence of everything they talk about you're going to be very busy and very frustrated. In this specific case nobody has claimed to have or even to have seen evidence, merely to have believable reports that such evidence exists.


It's been reported. And the folk involved were hardly Mensa candidates.


You're aware that libel doesn't require a specific allegation, right? And that Hetherington has publicly said that Pearson made some serious accusation against him personally and the Leeds club?

The recent tribunal shows no such thing, unless you have [ievidence[/i (

) that those accusations were presented and properly investigated. Not to mention the RFL's proven track record in sweeping awkward stuff under the Red Hall carpet.

You're kidding? Pearson was quoted as saying:
“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. "

And you think his beef is with the system?

Big difference between "poached" and saying that auntie kath deliberately behaved in an immoral way in order to benefit Leeds rhinos.