If he ''fully expected this predictable outcome'' and ''had no confidence whatsoever that this would be a fair or equitable outcome'' it seems a waste of time to have started the tribunal in the first place.
While he meets with Mr Watkin,another individual well-versed in the commercial world of soccer,perhaps a comment from the players union may be appropriate.

While he is sorting out the ''entire governing body and its hugely expensive and ineffectual infrastructure.'' it would be helpful if he also insists on the 'fit and proper persons test' for rugby league club ownership/shareholding - even though it has NOT been completely successful in the world of soccer.

OK FWIW, here's my two-pennorth.

On much of what he said, I would have preferred him to keep his own counsel and make his feelings known through the proper channels, rather than the media. I've criticised othe clubs' chairmen for making similar outbursts and just because Adam Pearson is the owner of Hull FC, I'm not going to withold any criticism of him.

As far as the Luke Briscoe deal is concerned, it appears that he knew full-well that we would lose on a simple application of the rules, he's admitted as much in his statement. It seems he was more concerned about the circumstances leading up to Briscoe signing for Leeds. It seems that there is a strong suspicion that these were set in motion before his takeover of the club and he was hopeful that, if that was really the case, those circumstances would be taken into account or at least investigated further.

What then throws yet another spanner in the works, given all the above, why would Leeds then allow Jay Pitts to leave and join Hull FC, mid-season, without a fee? At the time of Pitts's arrival, many thought it was the sweetener to mitigate what had happened with Luke Briscoe.

But as I said, he'd have been better keeping his trap shut.

Somewhere within that rant, there might be something worthy of consideration; I'm afraid though that Mr Pearson comes across as an arrogant bufoon who whines publicly when he doesn't get his own way. For those reasons, I don't think he's winning any friends or influencing people.

Hull FC is fast creating the impression of being a club that is rather too big for its boots.

What gets me is Hudgell mentioned in his 'private' letter to the other chairpersons that he has not met with the RFL in around 2 years! Why have the RFL not brought the owners of the clubs around a table to discuss any issues they feel the game has and throw ideas around as to how they can be sorted?

Pearson clearly has issues with the Hetheringtons and with the lies he was apparently told before purchasing the club, I can understand his frustrations.

Only 4 clubs rejected the Stobart sponsorship deal which leaves 10 clubs that thought it was a spectacular deal and they obviously don't need the money. How can this decision have been made without the chairpersons being present? Was it by proxy?

The RFL has invited club chairs around the table, its just that Hudgell has not attended

Nick I think you will find it has been MS attending the RFL meetings instead of NH IIRC so we have had someone there.

No his CEO has instead.

Peter Hood has pretty much blamed everyone from big Nige to Lord Lucan on his desperate quest to hold on to his job.
GH has been critical of the RFL, very publicly, though I feel his criticisms were from more of a fairy than a flatcap standpoint.

Or, chairmen of clubs experiencing a bit of a negative time find easy common scapegoat.

The RFL are, and always will be, in a no win situation. I've yet to see any comment, from any RL chairman at all, which has had any ideas whatsoever of how to take us from here to where they want to be. Simply complaints that 14 teams is too many, no mention of them volunteering to step down, or a process where we could cut the league or what they are willing to do in return.

To bring in Shaun Lunt (or not necessarily him but someone similar)?
If this whole thing has been a conspiracy and the Pitts move was part of it then a) Leeds have done very well out of it, Pitts was behind Delany, Ablett, JJB, Kirke and had been overtaken as a youngster being blooded by Clarkson, and now Ward. He was, if anything, just taking up cap space at this stage of his Leeds career and we had obvious deficiencies elsewhere in the squad.

And B) If the Pitts deal was compensation, you would think that Pearson wouldnt be airing these accusations again.

Ahh, I recently posted a list of things that Leeds do during games that very little other teams do and are apparently the worst club for doing so (It was most aspects of the game imaginable) and now I've found out our Chairman can play with the governing body of Rugby league like puppets. I never realized we had total control on and off the pitch, what a magnificent time to be a Leeds fan. Long may it last!

I can't think of a better club to run the game than Leeds.

bradford?

I have no anti-Hull axe to grind here, but returning to Pearson...

If, as he says, the result of the tribunal was a foregone conclusion, and the RFL have enforced a fairly straightforward rule correctly, then surely the party to blame for drawing out the case was Hull FC (ie, Pearson), because he could have simply dropped it, on the grounds he knew he was going to lose.

To persist with a case you know you have no chance of winning, and then blame the other party for the delay in reaching an outcome, is a bit rich, from a neutral perspective.

Or, more bluntly, he needs to pull his neck in.

I personally think Pearson is going to make Hull a stronger force down the track. However, I'm always wary of 'leaders' who whine. Why not focus on the positives - we'll never lose a player we want to keep, we got Ellis etc?

As for having a dig at the RFL, isn't the proper thing to do to join forces with like-minded clubs and approach the RFL en masse through proper channels, rather than bleating to the papers?

Smokey TA's right - has any whining club chairman come out with any positive suggestions for the game as a whole? Literally any fool can play devil's advocate. Its far harder to come out with ideas and let them be shot at.

Is Pearson an idiot then?

[urlhttp://viewtopic.php?f=34&t=524051&tsmp=1335253704[/url

I have already said I consider it unwise to say much of what he did.

Your chairman is an idiot though because he moans about the running of the game, without turning up to a meeting in two years. He also moans about clubs' financial losses, when no one from the RFL are dictating to them how much (apart from salary cap limits), they should be spending.

Unwise or idiotic? You do know he delegates attendance of said meetings to the CEO don't you?

I'm just loving your consistency on the subject that's all.

I think what seems to have gone relatively unnoticed through is that the previous regime at Hull (Hetherington, Rule, Agar) offered a very gifted young player a reduced offer on his contract renewal, which opens up the opportunity for other clubs to snap them up for free. With Kath probably aware of the impending takeover bid from Pearson, it seems fortuitous timing that her husband offers a contract to said player

I have been consistent, if you have difficulty differentiating between the two statements, that's simply a sad indication of how the quality of schooling in Hull has dropped since I left

He has actually spoken extensively on the two topics you mention - not losing other youngsters, the signing of Ellis, etc. - but these statements don't make the headlines.

He clearly feels he has evidence of wrongdoing - or at least shady dealing - in the Briscoe case. I have no idea how justified he is in this view and neither does anyone else on here. Something about it has certainly angered him way beyond losing a player who may or may not turn out to be a success in SL.


It may well be that this approach has already been tried and has failed. The RFL aren't well known for their willingness to take on board criticism, no matter how well intentioned or presented.

Considering I didn't move to Hull until I left uni, I fail to see the relevance of your (idiotic?) statement.

Psst.
He sends his CEO.

So the FC chairman is unwise but yet the KR chairmain is 'beyond stupid'
No double standards there I see.

What's the point in sending his CEO and then complaining about not having a meeting?

His comments became beyond stupid once he blamed the RFL for Hull KR's debt.

The RFL may administer SuperLeague but they certainly don't dictate to the SuperLeague clubs. The clubs themselves formulate the structure and how it should operate, the RFL act as a Health Visitor and make sure that no one is beating the baby too hard

Well quite!

If not being invited/attending a meeting is such an issue that he feels it needs to be raised, why doesn't he get off his booty and turn up to one?

Surely his day job has enough managers that he doesn't need to oversee everything and can spare a couple of hours in Leeds? His company has an office there too.