Luke Briscoe wasn't even the best player in his age group at the club. No big loss.

Comments like that aren't going to help AP squeeze any money out of Leeds.

I don't see any percentage in this, tbh. Maybe I'm missing something? 11th and 12th fingers, obviously, but apart from that.

For me this isn't about the money. Imo AP is making a point to all concerned; It's a case of one up man-ship, a reminder to the likes of Kath et al that he won't stand by and watch them take liberties with him or the club. Good on him I say.

Even if he hits the jackpot though, the figures are pretty small.

[iCOMPENSATION FORMULA
C1:3:16 Where a transfer is to take place pursuant to Operational Rule C1:3:14 above and the two
Clubs are unable to reach agreement then the following scale of payments shall apply:
...
(b) Player moving from Super League (or from a Championship Club running an RFL
approved scholarship scheme) to Super League
A sum equivalent to the sum of £115 per week of training and education invested in
the Player and a further lump sum of £5,000 if the Player attains a salary of £25,000
per annum or more with the new Club.[/i

Given that there are also guidelines relating to age and experience, representative appearances and the cost of bringing the player to the club it seems like the final figure would be little more than £10,000
Hardly a fortune in the grand scheme of things.
...which makes me wonder what his motives really are.

or leeds are using luke to try and sign tom when his contract is up!

I don't see what we have to gain really but if AP feels it's worth it then fine with me.

I suspect, as others have already suggested, that this is more about putting down a marker than any immediate material benefit. Plus there may be some evidence against the former board that isn't in the public domain.

Even then I can't see what's to gain. If he wants to sour relationships between Leeds and Hull, then given the record with loan signings, there's only one loser. Isn't there alos a risk of upsetting big brother if he has a go at Luke?

We already have a sour relationship with Leeds. Always have had really. There's been a temporary veneer of cooperation for the last few years under the old regime, but it was all smoke and mirrors. We have far more to gain than lose byr taking an independent stand.

In any case, why should being made to play by the rules cause any club to spit their dummy?

'The record with loan signings' is an interesting one. A lot of that provided more benefit to Leeds than Hull IMO, because we still won naff all, but your lot got a chance to see which of your youngsters might be up to SL and which weren't, whilst we would have the good ones taken back from us, the duffers offered to us (and worse still, sometimes taken), and be another year on with no further idea on whether or not our own kids might be better. It was a good little arrangement for Leeds, somebody else test driving their academy lads without Leeds having to take any risk of affecting their results. Looks like they might be moving on to Wakey now.

At the end of the day, we messed up his contract. We let it expire and we lost him.



As much as I hate to say, it was us who messed up Cooke's contract, it was up to us to ensure he'd signed it and we didn't.



We may be entitled to some compensation with Briscoe, but at the end of the day all we can do is ensure all our players contract's are watertight in the future. We only have 30-40 players on contract at the club and it shouldn't take too long to check that they have been signed and we are happy with the length of each contract.

It's basic business and if we don't grasp it, we'll be discussing this subject again in the future!

This.

Hope Uncle Kath gets her comeuppance.

Thats my view too and as Kosh has alluded too also we have more to gain than lose IMHO. Think the club is also making a point of showing that we are not going to be a soft touch with regards to the youth etc and any valued prospects coming through we want to keep will not be given up lightly if at all. The Hetheringtons pulled a fast one and Pearson quite rightly vowed it will be the last time it will be allowed to happen.

The fact is when we wanted to sign players that had been loaned to us by Leeds they only gave the ok for the ones they didnt want as they didnt see any potential. If we are going to use young players I would rather use our own and develop them than do that for another club with loans & no risk to the parent clubs.

Times have changed at Hull FC and so far all for the better and long may it continue.

As for Tom if he feels he would be better served by joining Leeds then that up to him be, we can't worry about not doing stuff or making a stand incase any player doesnt like it if it is what is best for the club. TBH I can only see Tom leaving FC for the NRL.

Spot on. May have helped us out of a temporary hole, but gave experience to Leeds youngsters at the expense of our own.

Not raking over (very) old coals, but there are plenty of legal arguments for people accepting a contract as "signed" without actually writing on it. For example someone turning up for work and taking a salary. If Cooke's contract wasn't agreed by him, why did he come to work every day?

But we did screw up, I agree!

if that's the case why does paul cooke have to wait till 2013 to tell his side of the story and he's not even at rovers now ?????

You're right its not about the money. A few thousand pounds is neither here nor there. Its about AP showing Kath, Gary (both of whom he intensely dislikes) and the RFL that he is not to be messed with. I've heard AP is not too popular at Red Hall but he's not looking to win any popularity contests.

Its not often that you post something that is spot on , but i'll give you this one

I dont think any Leeds youngster we have loaned has ever gone back to them and staked a regular first team place, the exception although still in the early stages may be McShane

Paul Cooke probably believes that after that date, he can say what he likes, wthout fear of legal repercussions. He should be reminded that the 2013 date sees the expiry of our limit for taking legal action against him. If he writes anything libelous, there's no time limitation, apart from the fact that you cannot libel the dead

Actually the time limit for bringing a libel claim is 12 months from the date of publication. And who is going to bother suing him? Plummer, Kath and Rule are all long gone.

Caddick wanted Hull FC, then Rovers, he wanted to build the KC on the site of St Stephens as it is now.
He failed, and went to Leeds

And you think Gary has worked for nowt?

We paid Kath £75k pa for 10 years, so what is god Gary on?

Where have your crowds gone?

20k+ days are over, you cant even accommodate them now with the crubling state of Headingley

On the plus side Yorkshire have a nice new media centre

must have imagined 21,000 there last night then

Scruton had a spell too. It kind of proves the point though, they were the only 2 that did ok for us IMO and they were taken back and then given a chance by Leeds. The rest weren't up to much so did little for us and Leeds cut them loose. We'd have been better off seeing what we already had at the club for ourselves.