Did they set off early or just their normal time though? Whatever the answer it doesn't change the fact that if the players were all in Hull around lunchtime/early afternoon on match days (which is what I'm suggesting would be an idea for players on such days) they would likely avoid the risk of a potential accident but would still have had plenty of time to get here should they ever be unfortunate enough to get caught in the aftermath of an accident.

I think this needs to have a line drawn under it now. We've gone off topic and it's clear that others don't share my opinion so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Time to move on.

The cap doesn't come into it because for all that clubs can be spending full cap they may not all have the same number of players on their books, maybe a team has a large number of players on low wages to allow for key players to earn larger wages etc. There's all kinds of things that can effect how each team hits the salary cap.

What BarnetFC is getting at I believe is the suggestion that in order to tempt certain players to Hull (both the city and FC as a club) that we may have to offer a player a bit more compared to another club, say Leeds for example. They could offer a player £100K wages so we offer £120K to convince them to play for us. Our wage offer is therefore better compared to theirs.

That make sense?

Yes it does.

Do we know that FC have offered inflated wages to attract some of their present players? Do FC have a number of players on low wages so that they can offer inflated wages to others? Obviously some players get far more money than others, there may be many reasons for this. FC may outbid another club in one instance but then lose out in another. There does not seem to be any evidence however that FC players in general get more than they would at another club.

I believe we're just speculating.

Well, it's not really speculating.

1 - We spend at full cap, and we're the 11th/12th best side in the league. That's a fact according to our accounts and the league table.
2 - there are clubs that don't spend to cap - Wakefield, Widnes, maybe Cas - who beat us regularly and finish above us. That's speculation, not sure what those clubs spend.
3 - other clubs that spend to cap also beat us and always finish above us. That's a clear fact.
4 - when we try and offload players like Arundel, Miller, Pitts we can't do it through a normal transfer, because they earn far more here than they ever could anywhere else, so they only get loan offers. We have to incentivise them to leave or pray they "do the decent thing". Again, easily proveable.

All of this tells me that we're paying mediocre players a lot more relative to other clubs. Because we spend to full cap and our team is worse than almost all the other clubs.

.... all you're saying is we were paying over the odds for players (2 or 3 years ago) who ended up not coming up to expectations.

According to the morning's Yorkshire Post. AP states: "Radford needs more time at the crease & score more runs" As AP is the umpire, How long before he raises his finger? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7188904

According to the morning's Yorkshire Post. AP states: "Radford needs more time at the crease & score more runs" As AP is the umpire, How long before he raises his finger? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7188904

Quote ="weaver93"According to the morning's Yorkshire Post. AP states: "Radford needs more time at the crease & score more runs" As AP is the umpire, How long before he raises his finger? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7188904'" Maybe it's time they realised it's rugby league they are trying to play and not cricket??

Quote ="weaver93"According to the morning's Yorkshire Post. AP states: "Radford needs more time at the crease & score more runs" As AP is the umpire, How long before he raises his finger? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7188904'" Maybe it's time they realised it's rugby league they are trying to play and not cricket??

I dont like cricket




I love it!



Taxi!

Quote ="weaver93"According to the morning's Yorkshire Post. AP states: "Radford needs more time at the crease & score more runs" As AP is the umpire, How long before he raises his finger? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7188904'" To use another cricket analogy. This season is a reduced overs match. We can't afford for Radford to keep using up deliveries whilst he finds his touch. Eventually the required rate will be too high. It's quite worrying that Pearson would seemingly be happy with 8 points from 10 games, and that he seems to see top 8 as some sort of achievement.

Quote ="weaver93"According to the morning's Yorkshire Post. AP states: "Radford needs more time at the crease & score more runs" As AP is the umpire, How long before he raises his finger? www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... -1-7188904'" To use another cricket analogy. This season is a reduced overs match. We can't afford for Radford to keep using up deliveries whilst he finds his touch. Eventually the required rate will be too high. It's quite worrying that Pearson would seemingly be happy with 8 points from 10 games, and that he seems to see top 8 as some sort of achievement.

So why is LR aloud time to prove his worth when PG got sacked for two sixth places and a CC final. Where is the logic in that?
If we had finished mid table last year and where similar this year then fair enough, but the fact is we were pants last season, and after LR has had chance to bring in his own players we seem to be going backwards.
It's really not good enough and if AP thinks that it is then maybe he should have bought Batley or Featherstone.

Agreed. Although given some of AP's comments he seems to genuinely believe Radford can turn things around. Radford must talk a good game.

I'm not sure for the first time I'm not convinced by his backing of Radford and think there are signs in that interview that should we not have a good Easter then he would have to rethink.

Massive game today for Pearson and Radford.

They are all massive games from now on.

That's what really baffles me, I'd love to know his thinking on the matter. It's not that I expect him to have acted by now, I just can't work out why he's still being quite vocal about it rather than keeping quiet and seeing what happens.

This;

sounds worryingly like 'if we give him long enough we'll get some results eventually'.

We've currently got Chris Tavaré at the crease .

Quote from AP.." [iand it helps enormously having a coach you can trust and who is working his hardest.[/i."

Gentle untrustworthy? Maybe AP thinking PG was siding with McRae??
Maybe the McDonnell situation - or a smokescreen??

"who is working his hardest." - questioning his work ethic? If true, he did very well then, doing sod all -making it to top 6 & Wembley.

Player attitude and commitment towards the Club would help.
Off the pitch their commitment must also be exemplary.

In defence, the commitment is there..
but for mine, the commitment is channelled in the wrong direction.

Playing devil's advocate of course that could be turned around the other way. People who would have given Gentle more time (such as yourself) despite being nilled at Wembley and being outrageously and embarrassingly stuffed out of sight in the play offs seem to want to blame the players for that and absolve the coach of any blame. Kind of depends on your point of view really.

As I said at season start give Radford 10 games and see where we are. Once again we've lost multiple games narrowly - we're undoubtedly the experts at it - but in the main we don't play enough good attacking rugby. Two losses in the next two games should see him out. He would deserve to go in the same way Gentle did in my opinion.

Agree staffs

I could partly understand that. If he lost trust with Gentle, then the position is untenable. I just can't my head around why he's still backing Radford so vehemently. Trust and hard work are to be valued and admired, but they need to be backed up. I'd be honest and try my best for Pearson, doesn't mean I should be anywhere near the job.

Doesn't want to admit he was wrong and is scared less of Radford, only explanation

Some might, but I don't think the majority do, and I certainly don't. What I actually said was that I think a few months' results and 2 performances in particular overshadowed almost 2 years of steady (if a little slow) improvement. I didn't say those were nothing to do with Gentle, I just said that overall, the rest of his tenure should IMO have seen him given the opportunity to continue that improvement and make amends for those two games.

I was also making the point about the inconsistent treatment/assessment. That's not even close to saying it was the players' faults and not Gentle's. It was directly questioning why Radford isn't getting any of the blame. It's very rare that it is ever purely the players' fault or purely the coach. Gentle was rightly criticised (although I personally don't agree with the balance of how much), but blame is still being laid at Gentle's door 18 months later whilst Radford is being lauded for having better recruitment and being a better coach despite the fact that we're somehow worse.

So my point of view is that that makes no sense to any right-thinking person.



Fair comment.

People seem to forget the horrendous injury list that Gentle had to contend with