Who said he has been offered a pay cut?

I wouldn't worry about it, some of the people on this board are clearly braindead

He claims Mike (full of e) smith tells him it, whilst he buys his ale.

Ben Crooks signed his current deal after only a few games, since then he has played regularly, been top tryscorer and in the Dream Team.

So we are now offering him a pay cut, somehow I don't believe it.

But Phil say he is on 80k a 15% pay cut is 12k less so 68k with a year left and two on top is still good for a lad his age.

I suspect the OP is saying that if more money is available elsewhere, then staying is the same as taking a pay cut.

A pay cut is a pay cut no matter how much you earn. I wouldn't accept it and wouldn't expect anyone else to either.

By the way, I don't believe a word of this contract talk. Are we seriously expected to believe that the Rovers Chief Exec is privy to Hull FC contract discussions? Pull the other one!

No its not! It's staying the same (as you yourself pointed out).

Did I?? It's a play on words, I know, but if he could earn more elsewhere, then he would be taking a pay cut (or less money, say) if he stayed.

I don't either but if what Pearson was alluding to in his interview is anything to go by then I suppose it's possible we may have offered Crooks more than we should have initially? Using the alleged £80K as a figure, was Crooks worth that when he was offered that contract? This obviously been before he was a regular, top tryscorer, Dream Team member as you pointed out along with SL Young Player of the Year.

Pay cut is irrelevant, advising your son to stay somewhere out of your own loyalty when he can do better elsewhere is just daft.

I don't claim to know what money Crooks is on now, what he has been offered or how much he wants.

I do know that at his age [iif [/iI was offered a contract for less than my current contract I would take it as an indication that my club wasn't bothered whether I stay or go.

Having the third highest salary and being 12th was meant to sound alarming. His entire point is that we're paying over the odds for average and worse players. Which is down to the deals done by the former incumbents.

His point about players being unavailable is that their unavailability is down to either attitude or cost. Some players have been loaned out to minimise or remove their impact on the cap. He specifically mentioned that we would be OVER cap if we hadn't loaned out players. Others have been loaned out because of their response to the increased discipline/workload. This is part of the restructuring of the squad that he feels is necessary which is why he blames McRae/Gentle and not Radford/Tony who are doing what he asked them to at the beginning of the season.

I'm still not convinced that Radford is the man for the job. At all. But it does seem that the problems and challenges behind the scenes go deeper than we might have thought. And it's abundantly clear that Pearson sees Radford and Tony as implementing changes he himself has decided are necessary, so they won't be going anywhere any time soon.

There is absolutely zero evidence of this. And in fact the picture being painted by a couple of posters of Radford as some kind of Machiavellian genius who has manipulated and bamboozled a successful sports businessman into doing his bidding is, frankly, risible.

But you said you wouldn't advise him to "take a pay cut"?