I suspect the OP is saying that if more money is available elsewhere, then staying is the same as taking a pay cut.

A pay cut is a pay cut no matter how much you earn. I wouldn't accept it and wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

By the way, I don't believe a word of this contract talk. Are we seriously expected to believe that the Rovers Chief Exec is privy to Hull FC contract discussions? Pull the other one!

No its not! It's staying the same (as you yourself pointed out).

Did I?? It's a play on words, I know, but if he could earn more elsewhere, then he would be taking a pay cut (or less money, say) if he stayed.

I don't either but if what Pearson was alluding to in his interview is anything to go by then I suppose it's possible we may have offered Crooks more than we should have initially? Using the alleged £80K as a figure, was Crooks worth that when he was offered that contract? This obviously been before he was a regular, top tryscorer, Dream Team member as you pointed out along with SL Young Player of the Year.

Pay cut is irrelevant, advising your son to stay somewhere out of your own loyalty when he can do better elsewhere is just daft.

I don't claim to know what money Crooks is on now, what he has been offered or how much he wants.

I do know that at his age [iif [/iI was offered a contract for less than my current contract I would take it as an indication that my club wasn't bothered whether I stay or go.

Having the third highest salary and being 12th was meant to sound alarming. His entire point is that we're paying over the odds for average and worse players. Which is down to the deals done by the former incumbents.

His point about players being unavailable is that their unavailability is down to either attitude or cost. Some players have been loaned out to minimise or remove their impact on the cap. He specifically mentioned that we would be OVER cap if we hadn't loaned out players. Others have been loaned out because of their response to the increased discipline/workload. This is part of the restructuring of the squad that he feels is necessary which is why he blames McRae/Gentle and not Radford/Tony who are doing what he asked them to at the beginning of the season.

I'm still not convinced that Radford is the man for the job. At all. But it does seem that the problems and challenges behind the scenes go deeper than we might have thought. And it's abundantly clear that Pearson sees Radford and Tony as implementing changes he himself has decided are necessary, so they won't be going anywhere any time soon.

There is absolutely zero evidence of this. And in fact the picture being painted by a couple of posters of Radford as some kind of Machiavellian genius who has manipulated and bamboozled a successful sports businessman into doing his bidding is, frankly, risible.

But you said you wouldn't advise him to "take a pay cut"?

I think this something that all Radford doubters/haters are going to have to accept. He'll be in charge at the beginning of next season. We may not like it after the season we're currently enduring but given the way AP spoke in the interview then I would say it's a fact.

Zero evidence of what? That he back-stabbed his way to the job or that he wasn't ready for it (and still isn't)?

Quite frankly one of the most incredible theories ever presented on this forum - not sure whether to laugh or cry. Adam Pearson being 'brainwashed' by Lee Radford. LMFAO.

As for the interview it backs up some of the suspicions I've posted on here about how much Gentle and McRae's recruitment has set the club back. Pearson must have learnt a great deal about the game in the last two and a half years that's for sure. Seeing the likes of Joe Arundel, Jacob Miller and like coining it in big time at his expense must rankle a bit - no wonder he feels it perfectly legitimate to voice his displeasure at the previous incumbents. I read with interest people thinking he's 'too harsh' criticising Gentle and McRae all the time. Easy to say that when it's not your cash being frittered. Also had it not been for Lee Radford and an injury to Shannon McDonnell then we'd not have seen Lineham or Shaul play at all last year - would have been interesting to see how Nick Youngquest went for us I suppose.

Finally I read in some posts about this being the 'last chance saloon' for AP. Actually AP is 'the last chance saloon' for Hull FC in my opinion. As he states clearly there isn't a queue of people offering him money for the club. He needs the backing of the fans more than ever that's clear - for those that walk away and expect to pop back when things are better you'd better hope that AP hasn't done a runner by then as well otherwise there'll be nothing to pop back to.

But he was brainwashed by McRae and Gentle is a much more sensible theory obviously.

I still don't understand how the recruitment last year has set us back so much that finishing 12th is anything other than a complete farce. Even the most pessimistic fans wouldn't have predicted lower than 9/10 for us this season yet suddenly with hindsight the squad is complete rubbish. It's excuses plain and simple.

It sounds to me that there's a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes that we the fans aren't aware of and it's had an effect on the team and the performances this year. AP acknowledged more than once that the season has been a disaster.

Well yes but the reason for this disaster is these mysterious off field issues and apparently no blame can be apportioned to the head coach who has freely admitted on several occasions he has no idea how to solve the on field problems.

Maybe resolving the off field problems will resolve the on field problems? I dunno. It sounded to me that because AP has tasked both Radders and Tony to sorting out the off field stuff that Radders has been excused by AP for the on field performances this year. Whether that is right or wrong is down to personal opinion. AP has said that first team performances MUST improve next season so Radford won't have his backing for long if they don't. That's how I see it anyway.

If anyone had put forward that theory you might have a point. But nobody has. The suggestion is that Pearson relied on their advice when new to the game and has since become aware that the advice was bad. No brainwashing required.


It's not just the recruitment last year but the year before as well. The squad's been found out and in particular the halves have been a disaster. Certainly they've been far worse than my most pessimistic evaluation pre-season. There have also undoubtedly been shortcomings with the coaching and Pearson alludes to this when he says he thinks both Radford and Tony have learned a lot and will be better at their jobs next season. That remains to be seen.

Do I?

It's 35 down to around 30k Steve

Really? What's Greg Eden taking you for?

Come on then, tell us how you know this...

Brainwashed hoodwinked whatever you want to call it some seem to be perfectly ok with the theory that bomber and Gentle managed to convince AP that what they were doing was perfectly sensible but its laughable that Radford could do the same thing.

As for the squad and halves in particular performing poorly surely that's directly down to the head coach not getting the best out of them?

It's almost like Radford gets a free pass simply because he has the balls to force certain players out the door.

=#0000BFFinally I read in some posts about this being the 'last chance saloon' for AP. Actually AP is 'the last chance saloon' for Hull FC in my opinion. As he states clearly there isn't a queue of people offering him money for the club. He needs the backing of the fans more than ever that's clear - for those that walk away and expect to pop back when things are better you'd better hope that AP hasn't done a runner by then as well otherwise there'll be nothing to pop back to.

This for me

The only person using the word 'brainwashed' was you - I was simply laughing at it.

In regard to Mcrae and Gentle Pearson, with his low knowledge of the game when he bought the club, had to trust them to recruit players based on their superior knowledge of the player pool. They let him down big time and cost him money and, it seems, pass holders. He twigged it and got rid of them ultimately putting right his own error of appointing them in the first place. Some would have us believe, yourself included, that Radford had persuaded Pearson to do this pointing out how badly the setup was being run (whispering in Pearson's ear or 'brainwashing' him). Since Pearson has been around much bigger sporting clubs many times in his career I would suggest that regardless of the actual sport he knows what is good practice and what isn't for himself. Not a great leap of faith there really, certainly not as big as a 'brainwashing' plot. With a 1 million pound plus investment on top of his purchase fee I would suggest that he was probably keeping a fairly close eye on things. He chose Radford as the successor as part of the 'Club Hull' model. He will get rid of Radford if he believes that he can't do the job. Again - with his significant investment to protect - he won't stick with what's there if he believes that it's turning sour.

Clearly and unequivocally he currently believes that turning the club around is a big job and he has the right man making tough decisions. In terms of Radford Pearson has decided that the right direction for the club to go down is the local players/local team route modelled by other successful clubs. This wasn't Radford's idea - Pearson has made the decision.