Wonder what the hold-up is now that the Wakey game is past - would assume an announcement early in the week. Feels like RLfans should hold a minute's silence to mourn the passing of one of our richest sources of pointless bickering of the past decade.

Don't know much about I'Anson but would be a bit surprised if Morgan brought someone else in before the end of the season really. If only because available quality stand offs aren't 10 a penny - may as well give him a shot.

I think JAYHKR's posting record could be interpreted as a pretty damning indictment of us all. Or he might just have better things to do with his time, of course.'"

On what evidence? Playing there for Donny? Hardly proof he can play such a pivotal position in super league.

we will never know unless he is given a shot at it

Maybe there is a 'stand off'

According to Radio Humberside this morning the hold up is to do with a confidentility agreement Rovers want Cooke to sign but he isnt too keen. Sounds like both clubs have agreed the fees etc.

He wants to tell all about his move from FC to KR in his book and Rovers are not keen. If I were Cooke I would sit and take the wages, why should he be silenced?

I have always thought he would dish the dirt once he left Rovers, I doubt there is nothing anyone can do about it, except sue him if its bollox.

Surely, the major factor silencing him now would be the supposed threat of a legal case from Hull?
I wonder if they might officially call it off now.

How strange. We have been told ad nauseam that Rovers acted perfectly throughout. Surely they'd jump at the chance to have the truth in the public domain and would be encouraging Cooke to make this public, to "put up or shut up", even?

Clearly not the major factor as I dont suppose Rovers are determined to pursue a confidentiality agreement just to protect Paul Cooke. If Rovers want an agreement you can bet it is to protect themselves against something or why bother?

Hull dont have to do anything IMO. However I am sure they will watch for any Paul Cooke revelations with interest.

The threat of a legal case has always been against Cooke (breach of contract) and not Rovers. Seems odd that Rovers would try to impose a confidentiality agreement to protect Cooke, and even odder that he wouldn't want to sign it.

Nothing involving Cooke is ever simple or straightforward, is it?