Not read the book but wasn't the issue around Paul King's testimonial also, I think it would have clashed with Cookies?

I don't profess to know what Cooke was earning at Hull, but on the basis he make the team tick, I can imagine if he was not in the top 3 earners, that would have caused an issue.

This is not a dig at you, just this thread in general, but there are a few self righteous folk on here. If any one of us was unhappy at work we would do something about it. Would you move jobs within the same city for a significant pay increase. Anyone who says not is either already loaded or lying.

If Cooke was unhappy at work, this could well have had an impact on his personal life. We know from at the time it was a turbulent path he was walking.

At the time he left Hull I was livid that the situation was allowed to have even got to that state. I'll hold my hands up and say I called him all the names under the sun when he lined up against us for rovers. Do I wish him personal misery (as it would appear a few on here would!), then absolutely not. The very fact that Hull FC never sought legal redress speaks volumes of the shoddy nature of the clubs management at the time. In a way I actually admire Cooke for the way he has carved out a coaching career from the ashes of what I'd imagine he would describe as a player career which never realised its potential.

For me Cooke has a very astute rugby brain. I for one would welcome him to Hull FC in a coaching capacity.

He tells you the wages he was on in the book. So no guess work there. It's only my opinion and after reading the book I think he let his club .supporters .and team mates down for a few Bob in his pocket. Imo reading between the lines he would have done it different given a chance. It's done now and people will have different views on it.

I thought we won a court case against him and were allowed to claim damages against him at any time in the following 5 years. I remember Rule saying there was no rush and we would bide our time.
Then it was no surprise that nowt happened !!

I don't personally hate him, but he certainly acted very poorly and let his team mates and the fans down. I just can't ever forgive him for that.

No; the RFL suspended him for 6 months/games, but Hull never took legal action, despite Rule's sabre rattling. I'd argue that this was not surprising. There was a statute of limitations (or time to let it all blow over) of several years.

Loved those arguments.

I've recently read the book. I was hoping there'd be more Wakefield stuff in it, but even so I really enjoyed it. As a neutral I don't agree with his reasons for leaving. He constantly states it wasn't about the money and more about the principal, but continued to take the higher pay on a contract he knew he'd never signed, and wasn't happy when his last wage reflected that. Just my opinion, but I felt he could have handled it a lot better than he did.