Whilst I'd never celebrate anyone losing their job I do think it might have been more of a mutual decision. And, as already pointed out, it was something the majority of fans were calling for! TS was probably going through the motions at this point in his coaching career. We need a young, hungry coach with new ideas. However the Morgan rumour seems to be gathering traction. I'm not sure whether you should ever go back, no matter how popular and successful the last reign was. He'll be a popular appointment with the fans, no doubt about that.

Sheens knew last month he wasn't being retained next season. Mischief making by Mr Smailes and co. Nothing out of ordinary here.

But it isn't next season, he has been sacked mid season, I honestly can't see what Snailes has done wrong, he gets some information that Sheens will be sacked, he reports it, Rovers fans start crying about Smailes, a day or two later Sheens is sacked, so he was right all along. Surely it's his job to report on sports related matters, including rumours?

I think it’s the fact he hasn’t reported on the Bowden incident

Mr Smailes only reports what he wants to report. There have been incidents involving Hull FC players where he hasn't reported it even though there was evidence yet he reported at the time an unsubstantiated rumour.

What incident?

If it's outside of the sport, then people need to be careful of what they report without evidence, lots of things happen with rugby players, most don't make the papers.

Like what, the Kelly incident, but was that really news worthy? Did other papers report that story or are we just picking on the HDM?

I've seen plenty of stories about drink driving etc for Hull players.

Also reporting that Westerman and Hadley might sign for other clubs, isn't that the same as Sheens.

It's fairly obvious that the Sheens one was more than a unsubstantiated rumour, Smailes had a very good source, you should be worried about who leaked the story.

Mr K is correct here. Remember please that our libel laws require a claim about the actions of living person that could be considered defamatory to not only be true but demonstrably true.

Some evidence for the decision:

If players are not following his instructions - his fault. This is his team of players now and he should be coaching them to follow his instructions.

Players like Addy starting at 9 - he picked the 17, his fault.

Only use 3 subs most of this season - his tactics

Leakiest defence ever - not directly Sheens but he helped put the coaching staff together so ultimately his fault.

Only playing 40 minutes - his team talks must have some part to play in this

Only winning 5 games this season - injuries yes, but see all the above. We have lost about 4-5 games that we should have won from a winning position.

We will never know if keepings Sheens would have been a better option than who comes in next, but for me the above evidence is enough.

This club expected and deserved more - for whatever reason it didn't work out. Move on. Mr H is simply doing all he can to make us better.

Turn out on Sunday to cheer the lads. Now more than ever they need encouragement. The season is far from over yet!

Agree with what you posted,how can a plodder like addy,be put in a key position like hooker,when atkin who is much quicker has been left on the bench,most times till it was too late ie the cup match versus warry.Our defence is comfortably the worst in the league 30pts average conceeded per game,losing at huddersfield when 16-8 up at half time and in control till the half time team talk which helped us conceed 22 unanswered points until a last minute try by us.Early season home to salford and catalans 2 games we were in total control of yet managed to lose and the rot set in.28 nil down to leeds and another 5 mins and we would have probably won,we seem unable to play both halves in a game.Injuries have played a big part,but how many games do expect 2 win conceeding 30pts a game.Good luck to tim for the future,but along with the players the buck stops with him.

Smailes' source on Sheens was what Aaron Bower reported. He had no source other than someone else story yet he still reported it. With regards to the Kelly incident, the YP reported on it along with some of the Aus media but Smailes didn't because he said there was nothing to report. To me that sounds a bit hypocritical. He reported on something he couldn't find evidence for but wont on something where the evidence was in the public domain. I've no problem with him not reporting on the Kelly incident but he should apply the same rules to both clubs.