He didn't come to Rovers expecting medals straightaway - he signed in only our second SL season.

However FTR he is really proud and he loves playing for a club where he is appreciated and respected.

That would have been awesome..

Nobby s the best English coach there is, some claimed he only looked good with the players he had, well his sucess this year has put that claim to bed, won me a few quid as well

You are probably right Kosh...however I await offical confirmation because every-one who I speak to (apart from this board) disagree

Our recruitment policy has been a shambles for several seasons and certainly not just Sharpes fault. The Cooke saga , Carvell's timing and injuries haven't helped as we have tended to be on the back foot when looking for signings and have often jumped at who ever was available just to have someone. We've perhaps signed some decent players but not in the needed positions and the length of contracts given has meant that we've been stuck and unable to then address the imbalance that we've had for a long time. Maybe it's been recognised and that's why we're treading water now just waiting for 2012 when we can take control again and genuinely build a planned and balanced side. Of course the problem then is that the quota places will have reduced again and the attraction of playing over here will not be as financially appealing as it has been for the last few years. To get decent Aussie players who are young - not the been there and done it brigade - will be very difficult. KR in getting Dobson knew what they were doing.

Wrong! Cusack was already here when Carvell left.

Knowing the RFL, you'll probably hear nothing until next April and then receive two e-mails in the space of an hour, one saying yes and the other saying no. What's the betting that no-one at Red Hall knows either.

I have heard this theory before, but as I said earlier in the thread I'm unsure as to whether it's fact or myth. Either way, it's not going to make a massive difference to our standing and I'm sure most of us have better things to worry about.

Still, it would be nice to know one way or the other. Let us know if you do receive a reply from the powers that be.

Will do, spoke to a friend who is very well connected so to speak in the rugby world, he said it is a myth, one which a lot of supporters use to feel better. He said in a sense the play-offs are a different competition (a knock out) as to who is crowned the champions, he claimed the play-offs have no bearing on the finished league table which is used by bookies, media etc and they will always refer to the league table.Like you say it will be interesting to see if we get clarification.

I have always used the Official Super League site and looked at their official league standings for past years that always shows teams in position after 27 games. It also treats the play offs seperately!

Thats what I'm looking at too, just having an argument of my own with a certain radio station on facebook about this. They're saying that although we finished 6th we are actually "classed" as finishing 7th. So their theory should be that although Wigan finished 1st, because they lost last night they are actually classed as finishing 2nd?? How can we officially finish 6th but we have to ignore that and we really finished 7th? Confused? cos I am.

I take it as two seperate competitions too, thats what it says on the Super League Website. We have the Engage Super League Competition with the winners (Wigan this year) winning the League Leaders Shield and then we have the Play Offs (based on where you finished in the Super League Competition) for the Grand Final Competition with the winners being declared Super League Champions.

How come no other team have mentioned this in previous years?

Because know-one else has 2 teams in one city to get one over on, plus a bent/biased radio station

Given Leeds, Hudds, Saints and Roversd all won I'd relegate Wigan to 5th, then promote them again next week (possibly).

And how come we have been told ad norsium since last season by that same radio station, and those same Dobbins fans that they finished fourth last season! If this is the case they finished seventh, they can't have it both ways!

We both know Wilf it is b0llox



HULL FC FINISHED 6TH IN 2010!!

This first came up years ago when we lost a playoff game to Wakey. At that time I had the same opinion you have. However, a few Wakey fans emailed the RFL and got emails back indicating that the final positions were AFTER the playoffs and even stating the system used to decide them. Fans of other clubs have made similar enquiries and always got the same response.

I know for a fact that prize money depends on position AFTER the playoffs also.

No, because Wigan are still in the competition.

The theory goes that the two teams who have lost in week 1 of the play-offs (us & crusaders) are classed as finishing 7th/8th with the team with the better record during the regular season being classed higher. In other words we are 7th and Crusaders are 8th.

The two teams who lose next week will be classified as finishing 5th & 6th. Again the team with the better record in the regular season will be classed as the higher of those two. So if Wigan were to lose on Friday (heaven forbid) then they will offically be 5th with the losers of the Warrington/Huddersfield game being 6th.

Losers in week 3 of the play-offs are classed as 3rd/4th and the grand finalists being 1st/2nd obviously.

The thing is, no-one seems able to find any official confirmation/denial about this. Mrs Berrigan has sent an e-mail to the RFL, but what's the betting that they haven't a clue either. The one thing we do know is that the Champions are the team who wins at OT on the 2nd October and it's not Wigan (as league leaders). Only the RL could create confusion like this.

Also, to be fair, a few of us used this theory twelve months ago. Primarily as a pop at our dear friends in order to drop them out of last years top four and down to sixth. So what goes around comes around I guess.

God, it's going to be a long close season if all we have to talk about is whether we've finished 6th or 7th in 2010

.

SIXTH, SIXTH, SIXTH!



Bookies payed me out for finishing above Rovers.

That's good enough for me.

I don't think it is a separate competition. The play-offs are a part of the SL season and not merely an addendum to the main body. Unlike the old style Premiership (1974-97) which were a completely separate Cup with no bearing on the league placing. Because it's a part of the SL season, I think this is were this rather convoluted system/idea/theory has emerged from.

There certainly is no "Grand Final" competition as such. The official name (I think) is the SL play-offs. But it's how these play-offs relate to the actual standings that is confusing. Kosh seems to think this is true, but no-one seems to really know.

I don't think we're going to find a league table showing this as it would simply look daft. You would have rovers above us but on 3pts less. Also, if Wigan were to lose next week, they would be fifth with about 12pts more than the team directly above them. How daft would that appear.

At least this is passing a rather grey/rainy afternoon

.

Quote ="BP1"I don't think it is a separate competition. The play-offs are a part of the SL season and not merely an addendum to the main body. Unlike the old style Premiership (1974-97) which were a completely separate Cup with no bearing on the league placing. Because it's a part of the SL season, I think this is were this rather convoluted system/idea/theory has emerged from. There certainly is no "Grand Final" competition as such. The official name (I think) is the SL play-offs. But it's how these play-offs relate to the actual standings that is confusing. Kosh seems to think this is true, but no-one seems to really know. I don't think we're going to find a league table showing this as it would simply look daft. You would have rovers above us but on 3pts less. Also, if Wigan were to lose next week, they would be fifth with about 12pts more than the team directly above them. How daft would that appear. At least this is passing a rather grey/rainy afternoon .'" www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 This may suggest othewise? Or it does the way I read it

Quote ="BP1"I don't think it is a separate competition. The play-offs are a part of the SL season and not merely an addendum to the main body. Unlike the old style Premiership (1974-97) which were a completely separate Cup with no bearing on the league placing. Because it's a part of the SL season, I think this is were this rather convoluted system/idea/theory has emerged from. There certainly is no "Grand Final" competition as such. The official name (I think) is the SL play-offs. But it's how these play-offs relate to the actual standings that is confusing. Kosh seems to think this is true, but no-one seems to really know. I don't think we're going to find a league table showing this as it would simply look daft. You would have rovers above us but on 3pts less. Also, if Wigan were to lose next week, they would be fifth with about 12pts more than the team directly above them. How daft would that appear. At least this is passing a rather grey/rainy afternoon .'" www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 This may suggest othewise? Or it does the way I read it

Bloody hell all this regarding whether or not we finished 6th/7th!! we won nowt (again).

I'm not sure

, it just seems very ambiguous.

According to that, it's called "The Play-off Series", but it doesn't say one way or the other if it is linked to or is separate to the rest of the season. It makes the regular season sound like nothing more than a qualifying competition for the play-offs or is that just the way I'm reading it

.

All it really says is that the winners of the play-offs are "declared the engage SL Champions", but we all knew that anyway.

I'm sure if we had somehow gone on a run to the Grand Final, we would all be claiming a top two finish

, but instead we'll just ignore this and claim sixth (and above you know who). I think it probably depends whether or not it benefits your team as to whether or not you subscribe to this theory. Which is probably why that certain well known r&w supporting radio station are so keen to propagate this idea

.

Will be interesting to see if I even receive an e-mail form them like BP1 suggests it will probably be in April, wrote to James Rule as well, I bet he says we finished 6th though



Like WZebra I won a few bets at work and have been paid out so not really bothered really, suppose the whole thing stops up thinking about Saturday

Hull Finished 6th
Rovers 7th

Just like last year we finished 4th

At last, a sensible Rovers fan who isn't using this "urban myth" to gloat

You do a great disservice to the League Champions Wigan the most consistent team in the League , which is far more important than winning a play off competition. Wigan are the champions and only because of super league do they think that this premiership competition is more important than the challenge cup and truly league champions.

You did finish above Rovers 6th , you were the most consistent team in Hull SLXV.

Unfortunately in the SL the play offs are the be all and end all hence the dissapointment on all of the b/w's faces at work today.