No they never. Then again, why let facts get in the way of "posting for effect".

So if you absolutely had to take one back now - Cooke or Rule?

Would have to be Cooke surely? I thought Rule was a good marketeer - didn't he oversee that big P&O sponsorship deal (and we had some very good shirts in that era IIRC), plus I think we got Grade A franchises under his regime, so he wasn't completely incompetent or the devil incarnate at that point. Obviously was beholden to Kath and the devotion to Agar was staggering. I remember writing him an email once to complain about retaining Agar and saying in a salary cap era investing in the right coach was a key differentiator and he basically completely disagreed. Reardongate beggared belief, and I posted on here then I was ashamed. And then the drugs cover up did for him, so bye then.

Cooke's an interesting one. I wouldn't be surprised to see him back one day but he does strike me as someone likely to speak about himself in the third person.

Neither, one was never much use and the other has no loyalty. I'd rather the club folded than have either back.

What a stupid statement to make.

I would take Cooke back in a coaching capacity.

It's an OPINION, people have them, just self righteous folk like you don't value anything but their own.

Seriously?? You would rather see the club go under than see someone come back. I've got to doubt your support for the club if that's your opinion.

Not when it's as moronic as yours.

None of the three are likely, which was the point I was (in hindsight, poorly) making