Thought as much.

But he was such that the entire squad basically refused to play with him so the suspension ( which even with hindsight) was absolutely the right call. I'm not having the cash argument, this was about principles and not allowing someone to do what they liked without consequences.

Knew alf macklin through local darts in 2000s very good chucker and a good bloke.dont really remember his playing days tho.

Craig, he worked with my wife at Akzo Nobel, he was a great darts player, as you say. As a winger he was my favourite player when I was a kid, simply because the first game my father took me to was versus Rovers in the mid 70's and Super Alf scored the match winner in the far corner late on in the game.

Cheers for reply,I had a similar first game experience and George Fairbairn was my hero.happy days

It is easy to slag off our management (you're an FC supporter, it's your default setting), but doing so from a position of not knowing all the facts seems a bit stupid.

Kelly's actions backed us into a corner. I won't go into what they may or may not have been, but they were more than pitching up late to the most important game in our season (if that doesn't set alarm bells ringing?) Even if our management wanted to smooth it over they couldn't, as the playing squad refused to play alongside him anymore. That makes it a lot less about money and more that his position was untenable.

Kelly should he remain fit will give you a good season and should compliment Sneyd well. I am sure that he works out as an attractive gamble, as his actions most probably mean he will be a lot cheaper than before and he will have to play out of his skin next year or contemplate a career away from rugby. After year one I would be wary of any contract that doesn't impose harsh penalties on indiscretions (he has mugged off 3 clubs in 6 years now.)

can not disagree with some of what you say here its the right approach with this player who you rightly point out has a great 1st year and then goes off the wall but I don't buy into the all the players would not play with him rubbish it was probably led by a couple of senior players, there's no proof of that other than it been said by your management team and lets face they would say that wouldn't they, it detracts from there decision get rid rightly or wrongly

I believe although I don't know Kelly had probably had a few discipline issues during the season, and this was "coming back late" the final straw for Peacock so he used it as a way to sack Kelly and get out of his contract early without having to pay him off he took the gamble with having Campo back you could get through the middle 8s without him, but it went very wrong, Peacock is cutting his teeth in management at your club he will use you to enhance his CV and experience, then when a job comes available he will be off at the first chance its rumoured he applied to Leeds recently his 5 year plan will never be realised by him and lets be honest with a fine coach like Sheens who has all the contacts in Aussy why do you need a rugby manager at championship level its not like he could give Tim any coaching advice or I would say man management advice is it ?

Does anyone actually know?

I've yet to see anyone on here post what has supposedly actually happened (other than the story we were told about him returning from Aus late).

Over the past few weeks some KR fans have alluded to there being something more serious that's gone on with Kelly, perhaps to appear 'in the know', perhaps it's a bit of sour grapes as he's joining FC and they just want to cast that extra bit of doubt in FC fans' minds? Or is it all just pub talk?

Is it as simple as there were numerous breaches of club discipline, and as fc-eaststander says the returning late episode was the final straw?

Hudgell stated just after the event, and before the season ended that it was a lot more than turning up late. I think it was Cooke who said players he's close to in the Rovers squad had told him that the playing staff had had enough and wouldn't play with him. In reality they probably would have if it had come to it but still sounds as if he's gone too far.

My knowledge is only from what has been in the press or what Hudge and Cooke have actually said. I assume the full details were not made available at the time, so as not to prejudice any legal action from either side.

A lot of this was mentioned before FC showed any interest, so I don't think it's sour grapes. It also seems that Hull are going into this with their eyes wide open.

If you get the Dr Jekyll player he can be, with Sneyd organising and a dominant pack he will go really well. If you get the Mr Hyde signing he can also be overweight and injured due to poor fitness.

Chief, just because you keep making the same three points in your endless posts, it doesn't make them any more valid.

Even though I'll get accused of being a vulture, should we offer Dane Chisholm a way out of the Bradford situation?