I know the rankin bits solid. The yeaman bit was only a whisper to be fair.
Not really sure of the value of retaining him and michaels. 1would of been right and personally id of picked michaels.

if yeamans cheap then a 1 yr deal as back up I have no problem with

Not sure hull did it the right way, buts it's the correct decision. He should have signed the deal first time around or get a new agent who should have pushed the deal through.

Yeaman is pants and performance wise doesn't deserve a new contract.
If he was from anywhere else but Hull he would be binned.
Would have more respect for the club if they didn't renew his contract.
Even a one year deal means he is stealing a living from the club

Player for player the ins up to now are as good as if not better then we've had in years, a few young players and the one coming up to the end of his career is still performing pretty well in the NRL, possibly even performing better then the likes of Kearney, Fitz and Shrek were at the time and they ended up top signings.

The outs Lineham is obviously gutting but at least he's been replaced, Rankin a bit odd and Paea was always going to happen. If we lose Shaul it will be a disaster, not just losing a top talent and player but will send out all the wrong messages and might aswell give up with young players. As frustrating as he can be I'd also hope we keep Westerman and maybe get the best out of him, it would be quite hard to argue against if they did accept an offer.

Retained wise personally I'd have a took a gamble on a young back rather then Michaels, be it lower division, promoted from within or Aussie reserve grades, but at least he's solid and maybe a bit more to come. Yeaman has been wonderful over the years and would like to see him get a coaching role, again take a gamble on someone to replace him.

Just seen tuimavave playing for newcastle. Doesn't look anything like a centre to me. Too slow and not big enough. Looks like what he is, a young half learning his trade but I don't see him as a starting SL centre

“We’ve been looking at a different dimension in our recruitment and we’ve had to allow some players to leave to give us the capability to change the outlook of the team, but we're pleased with how things are taking shape."
The above is a quote from Radford's article on the FC site. What does it mean? There doesn't seem to be a strategy with the recruitment , certainly there doesn't seem to be a common denominator for either the players going or coming in. Rankin is going largely because he's waiting for a chance in the NRL , Sa because he's been poor , Paea got a better offer at home so none of those fit the comment above. Perhaps Lineham was "unprofessional" in Radford's eyes? Are others going?
Our recruitment for years and years has been based on who's available that we can afford "now" rather than looking to deal with deficiencies in the current and future squad which has resulted in imbalance between youth and experience and a surfeit of talent in some roles and none in others. Radford is now saying there's a plan but what is it? I'm not saying that the individual players signed won't succeed and am happy to see if Carlos can make it over here but as with so many other things at the club the strategy doesn't make sense and things are said that are not seemingly representative of what is actually happening.

Agree with pretty much all that, apart from the Shaul point. Clearly something's going on here; at its most simplistic it appears he's unhappy to be dropped and his compliance and attitude have been less than expected. I don't think there's a sweeping generalisation that we may as well give up on young players. Crooks and Shaul's (if rumours are to be believed) departures seem to be in the same category though and not the first time young players in Hull have got ahead of themselves. You'd have hoped playing alongside professional role models like Ellis and Mini would help but you can only lead a horse to water. Whether things could have been better managed is obviously debatable, but Radford wants a teamcentric, hard working, good attitude group of players and suspect those who don't comply don't make friends.

I think young players are given chances, although only on a one game at a time basis. Radford's pretty quick to drop players after errors, but if you want players picked on form, maybe that's the consequence. Hopefully the current crop of Logan etc will know the expectations from the start; I wouldn't be writing off any/all future hope they'll be successful.

You can't just keep shipping out talented youngsters because they show a bit of immaturity. It's up to the club to address the reasons why it's happening, not just move the players on because turning them around is beyond the capabilities of the current set up.

Don't disagree at all, but given Radford went out on a limb to keep Shaul when Gentle was here I'd be surprised if there hadn't been attempts made by Radford, Last, Horne, Ellis to guide him/offer second chances first.

I could attempt to run a 4 minute mile but it's beyond my capabilities

Did nobody listen to both Pearson and Radford recently when they both went out of their way to mention that Shaul featured heavily in their future plans?