[urlhttp://www.hullfc.com/newsarticle.aspx?n=21101[/url

Nice, Might be facing a trip to red hall to explain his comments?

Thats Alibert and Childs reffing us for the rest of the season then.

Seems a bit odd. There's a clear rule about this. There's no judgement call here, just a consideration of whether the player was offered a lesser contract.

So either the RFL have ignored the rule, or they have enforced it.

Reading Pearson's rant, he doesn't appear to be suggesting the RFL have ignored the rule. Which means they've enforced it. So, what's the problem ?

Am I missing something ? Sane FC fans welcome to offer alternatives, because I don't see any in what Pearson says.

i think it is the length of time it took the rfl to come up with this decision, if it was cut and dried in leeds favour, why did it take the rfl 6 months to come to a verdict!

Too funny.



Pearson has been outclassed by the greatest RL administrator of the modern era and seems unable to cope

The article on the FC site seems to basically be two topics merged into one article. There's the bit about Luke Briscoe, which, tbh, seems like the previous regime at FC mucked things up and so I can't argue against this outcome as it follows the rules stated.

However, I find the second part of it a little more interesting.



This isn't specifically about this FC/Leeds affair but about the way the game is being handled in general.

I think Pearson may arrogantly believe his experience in an international sport with exposure on tap has significant relevance to the running of a regional sport which punches above its weight but is always going to find things difficult when it comes to exposure and sponsorship. In my opinion the RFL does a good job - but it's much easier to criticise than to understand the real issues and inherent difficulties our sport faces.

Pearson needs to be brought down a peg or two - and quickly, before he makes a real fool of himself and of Hull FC.

Seems to be moaning about the way the RFL go through process and the manner in which rulings are applied. Something that some chairmen are putting into question.

Until Gary Hetherington pipes up his displeasure at the RFL all other views and opinions by Chairmen towards the RFL are not valid.

As you were Gentlemen.

the RFL wont punish Pearson or make an example of him,

"these commenst are unacceptable and unhelpful for the game..blah...blah ...blah"

Pearson has too much money.

He can say what he wants. Doesnt mean they'll listen though.

Ah someone else has noticed that!

Although, of course, ludicrously overblown is the notion that Gary Hetherington has excess influence over Red Hall not a sad reflection on Pearson's own inability to professionally deal with his counterparts across the game? Acting like a big shot outsider whilst displaying your ignorance of the sport is hardly the way to win friends and influence people.

In any sport there'll be periodic outbursts by people who disagree with the governing body, but there does seem to be a rising tide of dissatisfaction with the RFL, more than normal disagreements.

FWIW (not a lot I guess) I think it's time to replace more of the leadership at the RFL. You can argue the toss about their record, but the right question is whether they're the best choice to move the game forward from here. Of course, we have to be realistic about the pool of alternatives, but I don't find Wood et al in the least bit inspiring. Even if it was for no other reason than to inject fresh energy at Red Hall, its time to gamble ( any change is always a gamble ) on new leadership.

So that's:

Hood
Hudgell
McManus
Pearson

O'Connor would NEVER bad mouth the RFL so long as he has a hole in his aaaa.

So that leaves 8 more Chairmen to be ignored before Hetherington blows out the black smoke.

Long way to go then.

If he ''fully expected this predictable outcome'' and ''had no confidence whatsoever that this would be a fair or equitable outcome'' it seems a waste of time to have started the tribunal in the first place.
While he meets with Mr Watkin,another individual well-versed in the commercial world of soccer,perhaps a comment from the players union may be appropriate.

While he is sorting out the ''entire governing body and its hugely expensive and ineffectual infrastructure.'' it would be helpful if he also insists on the 'fit and proper persons test' for rugby league club ownership/shareholding - even though it has NOT been completely successful in the world of soccer.

OK FWIW, here's my two-pennorth.

On much of what he said, I would have preferred him to keep his own counsel and make his feelings known through the proper channels, rather than the media. I've criticised othe clubs' chairmen for making similar outbursts and just because Adam Pearson is the owner of Hull FC, I'm not going to withold any criticism of him.

As far as the Luke Briscoe deal is concerned, it appears that he knew full-well that we would lose on a simple application of the rules, he's admitted as much in his statement. It seems he was more concerned about the circumstances leading up to Briscoe signing for Leeds. It seems that there is a strong suspicion that these were set in motion before his takeover of the club and he was hopeful that, if that was really the case, those circumstances would be taken into account or at least investigated further.

What then throws yet another spanner in the works, given all the above, why would Leeds then allow Jay Pitts to leave and join Hull FC, mid-season, without a fee? At the time of Pitts's arrival, many thought it was the sweetener to mitigate what had happened with Luke Briscoe.

But as I said, he'd have been better keeping his trap shut.

Somewhere within that rant, there might be something worthy of consideration; I'm afraid though that Mr Pearson comes across as an arrogant bufoon who whines publicly when he doesn't get his own way. For those reasons, I don't think he's winning any friends or influencing people.

Hull FC is fast creating the impression of being a club that is rather too big for its boots.

What gets me is Hudgell mentioned in his 'private' letter to the other chairpersons that he has not met with the RFL in around 2 years! Why have the RFL not brought the owners of the clubs around a table to discuss any issues they feel the game has and throw ideas around as to how they can be sorted?

Pearson clearly has issues with the Hetheringtons and with the lies he was apparently told before purchasing the club, I can understand his frustrations.

Only 4 clubs rejected the Stobart sponsorship deal which leaves 10 clubs that thought it was a spectacular deal and they obviously don't need the money. How can this decision have been made without the chairpersons being present? Was it by proxy?

The RFL has invited club chairs around the table, its just that Hudgell has not attended

Nick I think you will find it has been MS attending the RFL meetings instead of NH IIRC so we have had someone there.

No his CEO has instead.

Peter Hood has pretty much blamed everyone from big Nige to Lord Lucan on his desperate quest to hold on to his job.
GH has been critical of the RFL, very publicly, though I feel his criticisms were from more of a fairy than a flatcap standpoint.

Or, chairmen of clubs experiencing a bit of a negative time find easy common scapegoat.

The RFL are, and always will be, in a no win situation. I've yet to see any comment, from any RL chairman at all, which has had any ideas whatsoever of how to take us from here to where they want to be. Simply complaints that 14 teams is too many, no mention of them volunteering to step down, or a process where we could cut the league or what they are willing to do in return.

To bring in Shaun Lunt (or not necessarily him but someone similar)?
If this whole thing has been a conspiracy and the Pitts move was part of it then a) Leeds have done very well out of it, Pitts was behind Delany, Ablett, JJB, Kirke and had been overtaken as a youngster being blooded by Clarkson, and now Ward. He was, if anything, just taking up cap space at this stage of his Leeds career and we had obvious deficiencies elsewhere in the squad.

And B) If the Pitts deal was compensation, you would think that Pearson wouldnt be airing these accusations again.