By his own admission he was an idiot off the field both whilst at Hull and subsequently at Rovers, burning the candle at both ends. He appears to have matured now, and I'm not certain Hull FC acted perfectly throughout the whole saga. The protagonists at the club at the time have all moved on. Would the club benefit from his input in attack? My thought would be, yes. James Rule made a big song and dance about taking legal action against Cooke, yet we didn't. Perhaps there was a reason for this?

Cooke had not signed his then new contract although it was agreed by him his agent which was his father Roy, the only thing he did wrong was talk to a another club which he approached before the correct date, he was banned & fined which he served & kr payed, it was just bad as it was them he went to, & we never replaced him, still haven't to this day, he had some awful things said & done to him, the people who did these things are not fans they are total idiots!

Completely accept he may be more maturer now. Also the club should have made sure the contract was signed and that was also inexcusable. Cooke received a ban, but that only affected him and Rovers for several games.

Also agree that his skills and experience could benefit our performance and decision making. However, to me the financial implications of his 'no contract' situation still warrants a gesture from Cooke and an apology and offer of working for free for period of time would allow us to move on from the major blot on what was otherwise s fantastic playing career with Hull.

Fair enough.

Has he? He's righly knocked Hull for their performances in recent seasons. He's also stated regularly that he wants Hull to do well and that after Leeds we are his second club.

I never had a problem with Cooke actually going to Rovers. It was well known that they were his childhood club and no one can begrudge a player wanting to play for the club that they used to support. He could have put in a transfer request and explained his reasons and I think after the service he had given Hull, most would have accepted his decision.

His approach to Rovers was rightly punished, however if he hadn't signed the Hull contract, he should never have accepted his pay from Hull for that period and that was also wrong.

All I am saying, if he does come back to Hull (and how likely and ironic would that be in the week leading up to this weeks Derby), then he has a chance to make a gesture to correct some of his past actions.

Apologies if I've unfairly over generalised Schofield's previous comments about Hull.

I was just using him as an example of another ex-player who became unpopular following his departure, but because if his comments as opposed to Cookes actions, hadn't impacted the club financially.

I'd be happy with Cooke as an assistant...but not to Radford, he should be shown the door and not be given any position at the club, not even as a water carrier.
He's done untold damage to the club already through his selfish personal ambition and inability to accept his own limitations, to keep him on in any capacity would just add insult to injury.
As much as our great start was good the last two games (despite the win last night) show we really aren't going to do anything under Radford's stewardship.
The sooner Pearson realoses this the better.

Win against rovers and then we have wires at home .If we could squeeze out 2 wins then it may just turn our season round. Still on the fence regards radders but for me 2 big games coming up

I think we'll beat Rovers (although no guarantee) and with last night's result it will keep him safe for a further month.

Next up sees us play Warrington, Saints (a), Hudds, and Leeds (a). All very tough games and if all lost will probably force Pearson to call time on Radford. Otherwise, I can see his tenure plodding on throughout the season.

We should only make a change if we have an experienced coach lined up. We should be able to attract a better coach than Radford to the club. However, it wouldn't surprise me though if we started next season with McNamara in charge with Radford working as his No 2. If so, I'd be underwhelmed on both counts.

Was about to comment, then changed my mind

I honestly believe we would be better without Radford even if we had no coach to come straight in.
However Pearson himself cannot even accept his own failings never mind that of the coach so i doubt his judgement.
That Pearson thought employing an unsuitable, unqualified, unskilled, talentless no-mark was going to be good for the club I'll never know.
A win against a shambolic KR won't change my mind a jot. I outlined what should be our target and I just cannot see that happening despite the quality of the squad.

Not going to predict the outcome of the Rovers game as derbies are always unpredictable in my opinion.

Warrington on Easter Monday will be very tough as they have started strongly so we'll need to be at our very best for that one.

If we can come away from Easter with two points I'll be happy. Four points and I'll be ecstatic!

I normally share my views on Radford with you.

Unsuitable, unqualified I'll give you but unskilled talentless no mark is a bit harsh.

I sort of agree, but I still think there's a bigger picture to consider which is what Pearson's appetite/ambition is for the club after this season. Five years down the track and we're in roughly the same position as we were when he took over with Agar in charge and an underperforming side in the 6-9 bracket. Loads of cash wasted and potentially limited appetite to keep squad investment levels at this level with gates sub 10k. If he's a bit jaded with it all, thinking he'll not only keep Radford but add the incremental cost of McNamara might be stretching it.