Nice, Might be facing a trip to red hall to explain his comments?

Thats Alibert and Childs reffing us for the rest of the season then.

Seems a bit odd. There's a clear rule about this. There's no judgement call here, just a consideration of whether the player was offered a lesser contract.

So either the RFL have ignored the rule, or they have enforced it.

Reading Pearson's rant, he doesn't appear to be suggesting the RFL have ignored the rule. Which means they've enforced it. So, what's the problem ?

Am I missing something ? Sane FC fans welcome to offer alternatives, because I don't see any in what Pearson says.

i think it is the length of time it took the rfl to come up with this decision, if it was cut and dried in leeds favour, why did it take the rfl 6 months to come to a verdict!

Too funny.

Pearson has been outclassed by the greatest RL administrator of the modern era and seems unable to cope

The article on the FC site seems to basically be two topics merged into one article. There's the bit about Luke Briscoe, which, tbh, seems like the previous regime at FC mucked things up and so I can't argue against this outcome as it follows the rules stated.

However, I find the second part of it a little more interesting.



This isn't specifically about this FC/Leeds affair but about the way the game is being handled in general.

I think Pearson may arrogantly believe his experience in an international sport with exposure on tap has significant relevance to the running of a regional sport which punches above its weight but is always going to find things difficult when it comes to exposure and sponsorship. In my opinion the RFL does a good job - but it's much easier to criticise than to understand the real issues and inherent difficulties our sport faces.

Pearson needs to be brought down a peg or two - and quickly, before he makes a real fool of himself and of Hull FC.

Seems to be moaning about the way the RFL go through process and the manner in which rulings are applied. Something that some chairmen are putting into question.

Until Gary Hetherington pipes up his displeasure at the RFL all other views and opinions by Chairmen towards the RFL are not valid.

As you were Gentlemen.

the RFL wont punish Pearson or make an example of him,

"these commenst are unacceptable and unhelpful for the game..blah...blah ...blah"

Pearson has too much money.

He can say what he wants. Doesnt mean they'll listen though.

Ah someone else has noticed that!

Although, of course, ludicrously overblown is the notion that Gary Hetherington has excess influence over Red Hall not a sad reflection on Pearson's own inability to professionally deal with his counterparts across the game? Acting like a big shot outsider whilst displaying your ignorance of the sport is hardly the way to win friends and influence people.

In any sport there'll be periodic outbursts by people who disagree with the governing body, but there does seem to be a rising tide of dissatisfaction with the RFL, more than normal disagreements.

FWIW (not a lot I guess) I think it's time to replace more of the leadership at the RFL. You can argue the toss about their record, but the right question is whether they're the best choice to move the game forward from here. Of course, we have to be realistic about the pool of alternatives, but I don't find Wood et al in the least bit inspiring. Even if it was for no other reason than to inject fresh energy at Red Hall, its time to gamble ( any change is always a gamble ) on new leadership.

So that's:

Hood
Hudgell
McManus
Pearson

O'Connor would NEVER bad mouth the RFL so long as he has a hole in his aaaa.

So that leaves 8 more Chairmen to be ignored before Hetherington blows out the black smoke.

Long way to go then.