I think it was more to do with Pearson why Watts was sold .
He apparently didn’t think he was getting value for money.

Whilst i have no knowledge of the decision or what prompted it,i very much doubt Adam Pearson made that decision.
For me it would be Radfords decision which was supported by Pearson and probably Gaz Ellis had some imput.
Not getting value for money is way off the mark.After all he could have missed more games than the suspensions through injury so would the clubs owner instruct the coach to get rid because the player was not value for money as he was injured.
There is obviously something that has gone on in the background with Watts and Radford and we have to back the clubs decision.
The only thing i would criticise is not leaving the decision until the end of the season or until we had a suitable replacement.

But, and also without any knowledge of what occurred, it appears to have been something which required action immediately.
I don't think the club would have acted as quickly, if it had been something that could've waited for replacement or season end.
As per one of the above posts, I believe it was as a result of last seasons poor disciplinary record, after which he, Watts, was probably set targets, and failed to achieve them.

Well what I heard, Radford had to beg Pearson to give Watts another chance after something happened in Australia. That chance was then ruined with the red against Warrington.

Another rumour was that Taylor and Watts had a falling out in Australia which really split the dressing room. First hit between Watts and Taylor could be tasty next month

Apparently the case that senior players had enough of Watts and wanted him out, and that would presumably include Taylor.

Doubt there was a split in dressing room though. A split would imply there were people taking Watts's side!

If I've said that please link to it otherwise it's another one of those untruths that the voices in your head keep whispering to you when you're in your little padded room

I've heard about 10 reasons why watts was sold, all of them supposedly from good sources and each as plausible/implausible as teh next. Fact is we've lost a top quality player and not been able to replace that quality as yet so are poorer for it

Correct. And thats partly due to Watts being sat in the stands too often due to red cards. I said last season that 2 of those red were unlucky (bordering on unjust - the one on Gale and the one on McIllorum). But the fact remains that Watts became a player which the officials will have been watching that much more closely due to reputation.

The Red v Wire was just completely avoidable but for some pseudo macho BS he wanted to display which then got him a 3 game ban. If you were paying his wages, would you for give than? If it was a one off, perhaps. If it was the fourth time in 12 months?????

There are then the stories (I use this term as I don't know for fact the truth on this), but his refuelling habits and punctuality have been questioned.

At what point is it you draw the line?

Re the point highlighted, of course not, but no player goes out with the indention to get themselves injured, these are unavoidable. The Red V wire was very avoidable ...

At the end of the season.