But according to some on here the games with the first two clubs were 'conditions' on being dual registered partners and wasn't the Featherstone game last season Whiting's testimonial, a game which the club shouldn't have expected to make any money out of anyway, it being a match to benefit an ex Fev player and current hull favourite.

As many people like to point out when it fits "we are a business" we cannot run on sentiment.

I personally like benefit games, but not when they make a mockery of it and attendance is pointless as you dont know whos on the pitch.

You do know York received NOTHING for appearing at Donny, so how do you think (the club) they felt about paying out to attend?

You couldn't be more wrong..
as far back as 1901/2 we had 6 friendlies including 3 at the end of the season in April.
In 1963/64 we played NINE friendly matches..
Of course as the sport has become truly professional greater emphasis is placed on pre season training including friendlies.
That said we've being playing at least 2 proper full bloodied friendlies as far back as I can remember to the very early 80s which is the same number now if you discount a non entity testimonial match (often played at the end of a season in days gone by) and a useless training session 'match' against a depleted side two leagues below you.
As I said on the Wakefield match thread, it's about quality not quantity and so far we've had neither except for a 40 minutes stint against rovers. But some friendlies now are about ensuring agreements to make X club some money on the back of co-operation for dropping in/taking out our fringe players or other beneficial associations.
The York game might as well have being a Hull FC probables V possibles with a few names swapped over, it would have being a better hit up and saved the club a heap of money.

Friendlies aren't pointless, it's the manner in which they are arranged, how you use your players in those games and not wrapping players in cotton wool.

I only went to the Derby friendly because I was expecting it to be FC first team playing most of the game with a couple of fringe players showing their faces, I was happy with the first half performance but the second half tactics has made my mind up for next season Derby friendly I won't be going. The club need to be upfront with the players being used to stop fans going to games expecting to see a competitive game. What exactly did Wakefield get out of the game playing their first team against our second team, I agree with Pearson as they stand our friendlies in there current format are nothing more than a training session.

You love to find fault, don't you.

So now friendlies in the middle of the season count as pre-season friendlies. Bizarre.

And 1963/64, well I went to all those home games, and if the "F"'s were friendlies then I give up.

Edit: thanks to the Wigan website, the 1963/64 table shows us both playing 30 league games,

and as they had 9 additional "Western Divisional Championship" matches, my guess is "F" stands for "Eastern Divisional Championship", not friendly.

And in 1901/2, Wigan, as well as the Championship, also played games in the "South West Lancashire League", so my guess is......

not a good season either lost 32 won 9!!!!

I wonder what Neil Hudgell thinks of pointless friendlies?

Far too busy checking the small print on Bailey's contrct

I agree
The article from Adam Pearson is more about embarrassment than anything else and in any case surely its the coach who decides which pre season friendly matches to play.
To be thrashed by Wakefield even though it was mainly a second string squad is an embarrassment for the club.
Its no coincidence that there is no aftermatch interviews or live match/highlights of this game on Hull FC live so the club obviously don't want supporters seeing it.
Carrying pre season winning confidence into the league matches in Super League is very important.
letting HKR back into the game in the second half and losing, and now the Wakefield loss will not only effect the club and the players but also drains optimism from the supporters for the coming season.

Some really need to get a grip. Goodness sake there friendlies nothing more .IMO Radford has seen what he needs to and then gave the young kids a go to see if any gave him a selection headache. I will make some kind of judgement on fc after 5 or 6 matches

I'm sure he'll consult with whoever radford's replacement is before the friendlies come around again

He had one last week vs Wire

Wakefield's main aim was to honour an ex player well thought of at our club, financially after expenses we would have got nothing as the game was arranged as part of Ellis's testimonial, because we have quite a few new players' our coach took advantage of this game to sort out his new structures, by playing mainly reserve players maybe Radford's plans are more or less in place unless of course he's clueless.

Quote: Structured "I would say more of an interference. Pearson is the owner, not the coach and he employs Radford as head coach and IMO he should be left to carry out ALL aspects of his employment. If he (LR) wishes to play a certain number of friendlies it is his prerogative, his job stays or falls by his decisions, he doesn't need interference from a guy,who by his own admission, doesn't know a great deal about our game. A few years ago there were innuendo's and allegations on this site that Hetherington was 'picking' the team or, at least, having a say who would or would not play due to contract 'bonus's', surely no one wants that situation to arise again. He (AP) ultimately makes the decision on Radford's job so surely he (LR) should be left to get on with it, his way, and without anyone else having an influence on anything concerning the coaching or playing side of things.'" Radford never wanted four anyway. He wanted two. Think we ended up being contractually obliged to do the York one, then giving Ellis a testimonial. So Pearson's just backing Radford's original wish. Great to see them aligned. www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... story.html

Quote: Structured "I would say more of an interference. Pearson is the owner, not the coach and he employs Radford as head coach and IMO he should be left to carry out ALL aspects of his employment. If he (LR) wishes to play a certain number of friendlies it is his prerogative, his job stays or falls by his decisions, he doesn't need interference from a guy,who by his own admission, doesn't know a great deal about our game. A few years ago there were innuendo's and allegations on this site that Hetherington was 'picking' the team or, at least, having a say who would or would not play due to contract 'bonus's', surely no one wants that situation to arise again. He (AP) ultimately makes the decision on Radford's job so surely he (LR) should be left to get on with it, his way, and without anyone else having an influence on anything concerning the coaching or playing side of things.'" Radford never wanted four anyway. He wanted two. Think we ended up being contractually obliged to do the York one, then giving Ellis a testimonial. So Pearson's just backing Radford's original wish. Great to see them aligned. www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hull-FC- ... story.html