RugbyLeagueGeek

This is utterly bizarre to me. It only makes any sense if the rumours about the potential investor are also true. It may prove to be a master stroke and a brilliant appointment, but there's no hard evidence to back that up, so it's basically a bit of a hail Mary from Pearson. If I was a Hull FC fan I would have zero confidence in what's happening at the club at the moment.

The same places where the expansion programme has been funded and resourced appropriately.

Lots of exciting talent to pick from at the moment. But... Are they actually going to be playing this year??

Having listened to the interview with Pearson yesterday, he sounds like a good talker but says nothing of any substance, and what he does say doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. He'd apparently been giving Smith his full backing until very recently, but then also claims to have been talking to this prospective Director of Rugby for several weeks - both can't be true. And he's obviously not committed to that 'long-term project' that they've been banging on about. If the rumours are true, and Myler is being given the gig, then it's absolutely crazy to me that you would oust Smith for him. And if the other rumours are true about the potential investor, then I fully expect that to go pear-shaped for one party or the other at some point...

Tex Hoy isn't busy at the moment...

I think that's a slightly selective stat to be fair. He took Hull KR from down the bottom of the Super League to the playoffs, and I would argue laid the foundations for where they're at currently. There's no doubt this is a big challenge, but I hope they persevere with him because I think he'll turn it around given time. What was quite telling when Sky published the table of highest spending teams was that Hull FC were near the bottom, so I don't think they're going to get a better man for the job given their spending power.

I think it's more difficult for halves to shine in those circumstances, but fullbacks can still play really well and demonstrate lots of positive qualities in a losing side. I just haven't seen any of that from Hoy in any games I've seen him play over the last 2 years.

If I had a quid every time I slated a player for him to then end up being man-of-the-match I would be a wealthy man! Now watch Tex Hoy join a new club and become Man of Steel! This (amongst many other reasons) is why I'm not a rugby league coach

One swallow doesn't make a summer, as they say. Every time I've watched him play he's done next to nothing on attack despite showing some fancy glimpses, and then made some very half-hearted defensive efforts. Bottom line is if he was playing really well then he'd be in the team ripping it up every week, and Hull would be much the better for it. But he isn't, and they're not. Reading some of the comments on twitter defending him and slating Smith/Hull, it sounds like they're describing James Tedesco! But from my experiences watching him he seems more like Hull's equivalent of Latrell Mitchell... Doesn't do anywhere near enough good stuff, especially considering that he's probably one of Hull's higher paid players.

I haven't seen him do anything notable whatsoever in any games I've watched. If he's a rotten apple then get rid.

Whilst IMG are being labelled for being responsible for this grading criteria, isn't this a watered down version of what they actually suggested? Wasn't their recommendation basically a return to licensing with no P&R, whereas this version has been designed after feedback from the clubs? In which case, the clubs are as much if not more to blame than IMG for this new system. I may well have got this wrong, so happy to be corrected.

Early 90s is when I got hooked. Between 1990-92 GB played 23 full internationals, plus numerous tour games. Plus there seemed to be a consistent calendar, so you knew years in advance when we would be playing an Ashes series (and that it would definitely happen).

I think in the heartlands it's the opposition that's the sell - educated fans know if they're being sold a substandard product. As evidenced by the poor crowds whenever they play a mid-season international in Warrington. For the uninitiated, it's England that is the sell. This is why internationals are so important. Wigan v Penrith was fantastic, but the wider public neither knew nor cared about it. The international game is the best tool to capture the wider public's imagination (barring football, that's pretty much the case with every other sport in this country). I think the RFL fell asleep at the wheel in this regard. If it was up to me I'd have made certain decisions years ago to help avoid the current situation (e.g. After GB split have the home nations play annual games against each other, annual games v France, ringfence a Welsh team and 2 French teams in SL, establish player pathways in home nations etc etc). But these would all require strategic planning, money and effort. And unfortunately the RFL hasn't given us evidence of any of these in recent memory.