Which of the loan signing have you not been happy with?

It's not so much about the players involved themselves, more that on several occasions we have loaned players from you rather than give our own academy lads a game. We neglected our own youth development and aided yours.

Dwayne Barker, Danny Williams

Matty Russell!!

He is just one player.Leeds seemed to use us as some sort of nursery to bring their youth through.

We don't have a fullback now, and none from the academy are pushing for a place. In the past we've loaned players from you when we did have potential in the academy.

I'm not saying we have never benefitted from loaning players (Scruton and Dowes come to mind in the ridiculous 2003/04 period of injuries), I'm saying that at times we have loaned players from Leeds rather than use our own young players who were just as viable prospects (Williams and Broughton). It's the situations, rather than the players I had a problem with.

By tip off do you mean pointed to the many many articles in the papers regarding Ali's availability?

Did she also tip of St's and Wigan? and the 10 other clubs (besides Leeds and Hull) who made offers for him?

he was hull bound, done deal virtually then all of a sudden he ended up at leeds, regardless what you think or say, hetheringtons should not have been allowed to be involved in two clubs! only in our game you would get that happening! football, the maxwells had to give up oxford utd, even though it was his son who ran it! conflict of intrests!

Maybe Leeds made a better offer than Hull, like they made a better offer than St's Wigan, and 10 other clubs. Was GH tipped off by all of them too?

GH doesnt own Leeds, he is an employee, it is sheer nonsense to pretend that because Kath owned shares in one club, GH couldnt work for another.

It is funny how this conspiracy has spread, it makes a very convenient scapegoat. Fact is Kath's ownership brought you a CC and a Grand Final appearance which is better than the previous owners to KH and better than your current hero has acheived hardly the performance of someone not really trying, and it compares quite well with Mr moneybags at Warrington up to now.

From what I can remember most loan signings from Leeds have been met with pretty much the same reaction as the matty Russell one has today.

What's the most games a Leeds player has played for hull and who did the stop coming through.

Leeds have just brought Lunt in on loan and sent hood out to dewsbury, why couldn't hull do that?

I disagree, the reaction to a few was mixed, along with a growing resentment/realisation that it was always Leeds players and they'd jump our own youth in the pecking order.



Don't see how that makes a difference. The point is, if we tried our own players it gives us the potential long term gain of a SL standard player for several years, by continually blooding yours instead it's only ever a short term fix as any that make the grade will most likely be kept by you even if we wanted them (Scruton and McShane prime examples). Far less possibility to gain from our point of view.



Can't answer that one. It was yet another strange tactic of the previous regime not to send out our players on loan to develop, if they wanted that they had to specifically ask (like Craig Hall). Otherwise they'd happily be left to rot in the reserves that was no longer enough of a challenge. Thankfully, we now seem to have changed this approach.

it almost all came to easly didnt it? but it should have been something to knick on from, but no. under the the old ownership we sack john kear only to replace him with a cheaper option, and then again sack that man for an even cheaper option in agar. and they stuck with agar despite truly awful results and performances. he'd still be there if Pearson hadn't have stepped in. NO AMBITION! tell me im wrong!!!!