Paul cooke

[a-true-warrior]

has been suspended until march 2008 he is expected to return for the easter derby against hull this means he misses first 6 rounds of super league he also has to pay for the tribunal

[Banksy]

For all his years of service Hull FC do this to him, can't blame them like.

[the-Bowtun-Warrior]

Banksy posted:
For all his years of service Hull FC do this to him, can't blame them like.

Contridiction....

cant stick him really anyway! it all smelt a bit funny didn't it!

[DaveO]

Serves him right. You can't have players just deciding to move on half way through the season.

What mystifies me is that HKR have not been punished as well. They either didn't bother to find out properly that he was not free to sign for them or they must have known he wasn't. Either way it is a pretty shoddy way to go about things.

Dave

[GeoffN]

DaveO posted:
Serves him right. You can't have players just deciding to move on half way through the season.

What mystifies me is that HKR have not been punished as well. They either didn't bother to find out properly that he was not free to sign for them or they must have known he wasn't. Either way it is a pretty shoddy way to go about things.

Dave

But the RFL had cleared the move, Dave; that to me implies that HKR had checked with them to see if it was OK.
I blame Nigel, personally...

[gpartin]

GeoffN posted:

DaveO posted:
Serves him right. You can't have players just deciding to move on half way through the season.

What mystifies me is that HKR have not been punished as well. They either didn't bother to find out properly that he was not free to sign for them or they must have known he wasn't. Either way it is a pretty shoddy way to go about things.

Dave

But the RFL had cleared the move, Dave; that to me implies that HKR had checked with them to see if it was OK.
I blame Nigel, personally...

Uncle Mo did it! Stone him!

[mike binder]

all i can say good job wigan wernt involved we would be 6 pts behind every 1 for the start of next saeson all ready

[DaveO]

GeoffN posted:

DaveO posted:
Serves him right. You can't have players just deciding to move on half way through the season.

What mystifies me is that HKR have not been punished as well. They either didn't bother to find out properly that he was not free to sign for them or they must have known he wasn't. Either way it is a pretty shoddy way to go about things.

Dave

But the RFL had cleared the move, Dave; that to me implies that HKR had checked with them to see if it was OK.
I blame Nigel, personally...

I will blame him as well, he has to be involved somewhere.

However I think the RFL could only tell HKR whether or not Cooke had a contract as a Hull player lodged with them but binding contracts can be entered into verbally or by other means than a formal contract document.

For Hull to win the case they must have proved he was contracted to them and I assume they made people aware that they considered Cooke was contracted to them at the time - including HKR. So while the RFL may have told HKR they had no formal contract lodged with them tying Cooke to Hull, HKR should have known that was not definitive proof he was a free agent.

It will be interesting to see if now Hull have been proved in the right they take this any further through the courts to try and get some compensation either off Cooke, HKR or both of them.

Dave

[GeoffN]

Hull KR statement:

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Lead.html

[DaveO]

GeoffN posted:
Hull KR statement:

http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... _Lead.html

I was quite for HKR getting promoted to make up a Hull derby but they are starting to sound like Cas and have a chairman who does not seem to know when keeping quiet might be the more professional thing to do.

All this will do is whip up their own fans and con them into thinking they have been wronged by this - pretty much in the same way the Cas fans were by their chairman's outbursts over Wigan and the salary cap.

I had to laugh at this bit from the report:

"It is extremely important to understand that this ruling was wholly based on a narrow and self-serving interpretation of the 'registration' rules and goes nowhere near answering the all-important question of why a player with nine years' service from the age of 17 would become so disillusioned as to end his playing career with Hull FC."

This is code for "the registration rules were broken but we think Hull are nasty!"


and it continues

"Until those people connected to Hull FC are called to account to answer that question in an open forum, it is premature and lacking in basic understanding for anyone to start claiming the moral high ground and a supposed victory in the name of the integrity of the game.

Hull don't have to answer to anyone and the victory as far as the game goes is that players can't just walk out on a club half way through the season. It gives a welcome bit of support to the notion of a players contract being binding as IMO they are far too easily cast aside when it suits the player.

Dave