While I don't particularly agree with most of what you've said, this is true. How anyone can say that Fitz and Radford offered the same to FC is daft, for the exact reasons you've just stated.

Well, the RFL have awarded him a testimonial based on his 300 appearances in a trophy rich career. I'd say on this basis it's deserved.
If you're undecided whether or not to attend this afternoon, just remember that some of your money will go to the Steve Prescott foundation and various other charities and you get to see your favourite team!

I didn't mean they performed the same in the level of what they did, but that they offered similar roles. I said in a previous post that Fitzgibbon was more polished and fitter, as you say Fitzgibbon was much better on the floor, and his fitness meant he wasn't as easy to get round when fatigue kicked in (although we did still see it). Both he and Radford were slow, predictable plodders with the ball, but had great work ethics in defence, Fitzgibbon was just more accomplished at it. Both still gave everything they could. That's why I don't understand why one is praised with other factors taken into account (ie Agar), but the other criticised and not given the same benefit of the doubt.

As I've said before, the Captain argument is completely irrelevant.

So are the RFL going to give testimonials to every player who plays 300 games?

Would people be happy if Cooke played another 13 top flight games and was awarded a testimonial?

Thats where i see things different to you i think, in defence Radford is a bit of an old school get them on the floor n thats job done. He was a bad one for standing behind the 2 square markers ie offerering the defence line nothing and going for a rest.

I don't buy into the "he gave his all" tbh.

But it was precisely because the players were not getting paid and the club looked like it was going bust that made Bradford's offer a lifeline that couldn't be refused.

I daresay at that moment in time with the betrayal of the owner and the dangerous shambles he'd led Hull into, very few of the players would be feeling loyalty to him. They were probably sorry for the fans but more frightened for themselves.

I really don't get all this Radford bashing. Weird.

ditto, unbeliveable. just read 5 or 6 pages of dog turd. i'm red n white through and through, but because we have no game today and because of the type of kid lee is, i'm going with my little B&W cousin.

some people are either plain greedy or stupid.

as a red and white myself i find all this a bit distasteful your team has under performed in the last few years was it all radfords fault and when he left to go to bradford who wouldnt at that time i wouldnt dream of slagging one our players off on the eve of his testimonial and to the idiot who started this thread instead of hiding behind your computer go today and tell lee to his face how you feel some how i doubt you will

As I said, I'm not knocking his decision to move on in order to further his career and maximise his salary, I'm questioning the RFL's decision to award him a testimonial for having done so.

None . cant stand his play and when he was Captain we finished bottom

So people are only entitled to express an opinion on a player if they're prepared to repeat that opinion to the player's face? What an odd concept.

there are a fair few players who have been granted testemonials in the same circumstances, stanley gene, keith senior, rob purdham to name a few. imo, anybody who plays this sport for 10 years deserves it, it's their popularity which willl determine how much they make from it.

in the case of radders, can't knock him for donating some of the proceeds to charity, well done.

whats odd about it if he feels that strongly about it it must be just me then i wouldnt say anything behind someones back that i wouldnt say to there face its easy to do that with a computer a lot harder to say it to the face you just come across as a w****r with no bottle