Quote ="Mrs Barista"Give it up. You challenged whether Cooke's salary had been reported anywhere, and were given two publications. Whether you believe Cooke earns £125,000 a year or not is another point entirely. It has been reported, hence the use of "reportedly" in the orignal post. Here's another one for you, in the national press this time: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/147 ... -Crusaders Also, the HDM is categorical in what Cooke is being paid - no reference to "understands that" or "reportedly", just stating it as a fact: "Cooke has one year remaining on his contract at Craven Park, where he [uis[/u one of the top earners on £125,000 per year. Honestly, as a journalist you really need to keep up with the widely reported story of Rovers trying to offload one of their most expensive players. '" You need to give it up because if both those publications have quoted that figure then it makes them both wrong.

Quote ="Mrs Barista"Give it up. You challenged whether Cooke's salary had been reported anywhere, and were given two publications. Whether you believe Cooke earns £125,000 a year or not is another point entirely. It has been reported, hence the use of "reportedly" in the orignal post. Here's another one for you, in the national press this time: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/147 ... -Crusaders Also, the HDM is categorical in what Cooke is being paid - no reference to "understands that" or "reportedly", just stating it as a fact: "Cooke has one year remaining on his contract at Craven Park, where he [uis[/u one of the top earners on £125,000 per year. Honestly, as a journalist you really need to keep up with the widely reported story of Rovers trying to offload one of their most expensive players. '" You need to give it up because if both those publications have quoted that figure then it makes them both wrong.

Fair enough. FWIW Moa had more than a couple of decent games and he was only ever 50% fit. There's good reason that Morgs made an approach for him.

(even though it's denied by Rovers)

Who was the Reserve Team player of the year at Hull last season.
I will give you a clue.
It wasnt Tuffour,Lynne or Briscoe.
All 3 of which are not ready to be pitched in at SL level yet IMO.
Its my opinion dont get upset because it differs to yours

Tony Smith differs from you.

I'll give you a clue, it was the lad who was 3 or 4 years older than the guys youve named above and who was also a full time professional which those guys weren't.

Think he means Jack not Tom.

You do realise we are referring to Jack Briscoe dont you

And as already said, whether true or not is a separate issue. It's been reported as such in 3 publications. You challenged that it had been reported. The HDM didn't leave it open to question BTW. Has Mullan had some sort of tiff with the club?





I didnt challenge it i asked because only buy The Sun


Charlie is Irish so will have been in too much of a drunken stupor to fall out with anyone in the last week

I do now

Who proved in the short spell he played that he wasnt ready for SL too

Big year for him.
He will either establish himself or end up in the National Leagues.

Looks like GML has edited my post. For the avoidance of doubt I don't buy the Sun, nor do I think Charlie Mullan is a big drinker.

Opps clicked Edit instead of Quote

Agreed, hasnt been helped by us messing his position about but still his big/last chance imo.

Didn't he owe Hull best part of £100k in legal fees which was paid off by his signing on fee for rovers?

Thought wheeldon was from longhill, not PNG

Hull have cusack and dowes who can do the donkey work. Moa was signed as an impact prop and is still in his early 20's. I think he's been over hyped to date but expect him to mature into a fine player in the next 2 to 3 years

As you are opinionated then Jake why do you think FC have failed to take Cookie to Court re legal fees?

Because he paid them back with his signing on fee from rovers? I presume he doesn't owe Hull any money now

3+ years to go yet. Tick tock

The wrong answer

Correct. The only outstanding legal action that could be taken would be for breach of contract should Hull want to take that action or get proof of an illegal approach by Rovers which currently doesnt exist. My personal opinion here is that FC wont follow anything up here and just leave things be as they are.

But why won't FC want the easy pickings of Legal Fees?

Eh?

Because that money has already been paid back.