Doom&Gloom Merchant wrote:1yr deal as a backup, why are so many mouths frothing at this? Is it really that much of a problem to people?
When player doesn't perform they don't deserve a new contract.I have said it before if Yeaman was from anywhere else but Hull he would have been out of the door at the end of the season. We havnt a clue what Yeaman earns but when the club is obviously looking to cut costs and Adam Pearson making his usual plea to buy your season pass, to keep Yeaman on for another year is money down the drain As you have pointed out we are well and truly covered in the forwards so is he going to be our new player coach in the under 23s.I hope not.
I stated reasons on my previous post as to why he may be kept on for another year, which was (again) to provide backup to the backs - did you read that bit? Myself and a couple of others said that he's likely a positive influence around the place too, specifically to a really young set of backs.
Is Yeaman being a backup player in 2016 such a problem? Why are you so angered by it?
Unlike you, I don't think we have sufficient cover in the backs. I do agree with you, and so does EVERYBODY, that his days as a first choice centre are finished.
Again, you're doing that weird thing you do and putting two and two together and getting 5. Is that all you have to go on to conclude that Radders & Yeaman are best mates? It's no wonder people treat your posts with zero respect. You're the most close-minded poster on these boards, and thats saying something.
I'm not close minded, I see it perfectly clear frankly after weighing up the facts. Your reasons to keep him aren't logical given the options we have. You also don't need as much cover numerically in the backs as you do the forwards, that's pretty obvious to anyone who has an ounce of rugby knowledge. And as has being seen Yeaman is right at the back of the queue to be cover, he just doesn't cut it and there are far better options from the youngsters, Logan already has shown he's vastly better in just a few games. There are no logical reasons to give him a contract so on that basis one has to ask the question, why is he getting yet another extension? It would seem Radford is untouchable in your eyes, unlike the previous more successful coach whom was lambasted on here for allegedly handing out favourable/over the top contracts to certain players. That the amounts were just rumour and conjecture not backed up with any facts yet the coach was laid into time and again on this forum makes that double standards. As I said, a player receiving another contract when to all and sundry he doesn't offer us anything should be scrutinised, however he's a 30 something Hull lad and not some young up and coming Australian kid so that's explains everything
knockersbumpMKII wrote:I'm not closed minded, I see it perfectly clear frankly after weighing up the facts. Your reasons to keep him aren't logical given the options we have. You also don't need as much cover numerically in the backs as you do the forwards, that's pretty obvious to anyone who has an ounce of rugby knowledge. And as has being seen Yeaman is right at the back of the queue to be cover, he just doesn't cut it and there are far better options from the youngsters, Logan already has shown he's vastly better in just a few games. There are no logical reasons to give him a contract so on that basis one has to ask the question, why is he getting yet another extension? It would seem Radford is untouchable in your eyes, unlike the previous more successful coach whom was lambasted on here for allegedly handing out favourable/over the top contracts to certain players. That the amounts were just rumour and conjecture not backed up with any facts yet the coach was laid into time and again on this forum makes that double standards. As I said, a player receiving another contract when to all and sundry he doesn't offer us anything should be scrutinised, however he's a 30 something Hull lad and not some young up and coming Australian kid so that's explains everything
What are you going on about? Step away from the keyboard, wipe away the froth from your mouth and stop being outraged over something that isn't outrageous.
1yr deal, backup back, that's it
Cup Winners: 1914, 1982, 2005, 2016, 2017. Cup Runners-Up: 1908, 1909, 1910, 1922, 1923, 1959, 1960, 1980, 1983, 1985, 2008, 2013. League Champions: 1920, 1921, 1936, 1956, 1958, 1983. League Runners-Up: 1957, 1982, 1984, 2006.
knockersbumpMKII wrote:It would seem Radford is untouchable in your eyes, unlike the previous more successful coach whom was lambasted on here for allegedly handing out favourable/over the top contracts to certain players.
As has been pointed out time and time again just because a poster doesn't slate Radford on every post doesn't mean they back him.
Who was this "successful" coach, by the way? The one who finished mid table twice, and coached us to humiliation twice in 2013? You keep banging on that Gentle got us to Wembley but so what? We lost and the performance was shameful. I'd rather we hadn't got there. You are celebrating mediocrity.
Personally I'd rather we hadn't signed washbrook, yeaman and feka and used the money to sign a centre or hooker. All of those players are back ups and we'd have been better served with a specialist hooker or another centre IMO
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Doom&Gloom Merchant wrote:I'm not sure. We'll have what, 8 players covering 5 positions in the backs? I can see why the club would want to have that extra cover in there. There were definitely times this season where we had a few backs out injured (admittedly that included Sa who's record is atrocious) or dropped.
Yeaman himself has ruled out continuing as a centre and we have plenty of cover in the pack.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Jake the Peg wrote:Personally I'd rather we hadn't signed washbrook, yeaman and feka and used the money to sign a centre or hooker. All of those players are back ups and we'd have been better served with a specialist hooker or another centre IMO
This would of been my preferred option, makes the most sense. But still, I'm not to upset by the 1 year contracts offered to the 3 mentioned
Joined: Mar 14 2003 Posts: 25977 Location: Back in Hull.
Jake the Peg wrote:Personally I'd rather we hadn't signed washbrook, yeaman and feka and used the money to sign a centre or hooker. All of those players are back ups and we'd have been better served with a specialist hooker or another centre IMO
Totally agree, but not sure there has been the quality in either position available though, hooker is a tough one, as you really want Danny to play 60 minutes, so have a hooker on the bench for 20 seems a waste, so signing a utility player makes sense (Although not convinced Washbrook is the right player for that hooking role)
Overall recruitment has been excellent and the quality of the players signed has been really good, if the two backs work out we could be a real threat next year, so I can't really moan about squad players getting signed on.
I doubt Radford will pick his mates next year, as if the team doesn't improve he will be out of work.
Joined: Mar 14 2003 Posts: 25977 Location: Back in Hull.
Off topic slightly, I would be tempted to look to appoint Harris as our assistant (attack) coach, great pedigree as a player and a fantastic ball player. Not sure you can judge his time at Salford due to the ownership there and his interference.
Dave K. wrote:Off topic slightly, I would be tempted to look to appoint Harris as our assistant (attack) coach, great pedigree as a player and a fantastic ball player. Not sure you can judge his time at Salford due to the ownership there and his interference.
Not sure because he wasn't great in charge of Wales either, in a tournament that was set up for them to do well (their quarter final was in Wrexham for example but they didn't even get out the group) would have to get the opinions of his former players as to what he does on the training field.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
