[life of brian modeAll right... all right... but apart from Gleeson/Cooper/Rule drug scandal.
Jordan Tansey show.
Agar contract extension after achieving nothing.
Reardon signing failure.
Crocker visa failure.
Jamie Thackray Challenge Cup ineligibilty.
Cooke not signing a contract.
Minor breach of Salary Cap in 2005 (fined 2006).
Salary Cap breach in 2002 (points deducted in 2003).
losing a briscoe brother to leeds
what have hull fc's last administration ever done wrong for us? [/life of brian mode

Kath Hetherington came out and said on numerous occasions that James Rule oversees the day to day running of the club. Therefore when he decided to take the action he did he was doing so on behalf of the club (the one he ran day to day according to the chairperson).

As a Hull fan I am absolutely sick to the back teeth of my club being in the press for all the wrong reasons. I am though satisfied that the new owners will root out all the ills of the previous regime.

In Adam Pearson we have an owner with proven pedigree within the sports world. I strongly feel that he would relish a full RFL investigation as it would give him the opportunity to get under the skin of the despised Heatheringtons.
Kath and I have no doubt at all her beloved husband (I can take abuse from Rhinos on this as its my opinion) has managed to walk away from this and also the impending large tax bill unscathed. She controlled the day to day affairs of the club. Regardless of whatever was said before in terms of Rule. She held sway and she ruled with an iron rod and imo was able to do so as she employed young ambitious men to do the work for her. She promoted people and made them feel good. In turn they did as they were told. And one such thing imo was making Rule the fall guy in all of this.
Now if the RFL want to go after the club then I am certain Kath will be implicated. Now do the RFL have the balls for that? I would imagine Gary will have a quiet word and all will be forgotten. It wouldn't take to much for people to talk. Rule is a broken man who's ambitions have been seriously checked. Ok he also had a brain to say no to doing what he has done. But I am sure that if this was taken further then he would easily be persuaded to talk.

So imo the RFL can and should punish the club, but it would come at a large cost to the game and also the precious Heatheringtons who are quite simply vermin.


I apologise for that word but its the mildest form of what I actually feel.

I understand the point. What I'm saying is that in terms of criminal responsibility it doesn't always work that way - it's dependent on the details of the case and none of us know the details.

lol we've been hearing this since Wilby and Lloyd took over the club, I suppose it has to come true eventually!

No, I won't agree to disagree, because you're wrong.

Also, you keep referring to criminal liability - to help you out, I'll remind you again that this is not a criminal case and as such, the burden of proof is significantly lower.

You really ought to bow out of this aspect of the discussion; your wishful thinking is making you look daft.

Didnt put that as clearly as I meant Adey. Meant to put that it was unfair to punish Hull with a points deduction as that affects them on the field. If their found guilty of bringing game into disrepute then its largely to do with clubs image and not really an on field issue so should be a fine. They didnt gain any on field advantage from covering up why gleeson wasnt playing. Its the covering up bit they might get done for, not the failed drugs test.

It's not wishful thinking - it's a difference of opinion. I haven't dismissed your argument out of hand and I've already noted that I could be wrong. Time will tell.

I understand the difference between criminal and civil cases when it comes to the burden of proof. The same guiding principles are involved though and they were the only examples I had personal experience of. If you have a better example that illustrates your argument then I'd be genuinely interested to hear it.

If you're so sure you're right, how come the club haven't been punished?

You're either very arrogant or very stubborn if you can't prove your point but insist that it's right.

Its all Radford`s fault.

Presumably its not within UKAD's remit to punish clubs? Wouldnt the natural sequence be for them to deal with the individuals, with any action against the club taken subsequently by the RFL?

Precisely.

What I'm arguing against here is the misguided certainty of some Hull fans, who seem to think that the RFL can't punish the club for the actions of it's employees, simply because there's been a regime change, some resignations or because the individuals were acting independently; all of those assumptions are wrong.

What I'm not arguing however, is that the RFL definitely will punish the club; I believe they should, but I'm not certain they will.

On another matter - am I right in thinking that all three players who've been busted for drug offences in the past couple of seasons are Wigan products?

to be fair it has, but with adam pearson now in charge, all fc fans are excited and optimistic about our future now, we've rid ourselves of the cancer at the club finally, one of the best days in the clubs history when pearson took over and one of the worst for dobbins fans!

It's been even longer that we've listened to your lot promising to operate within budget

I think you might find that any ongoing UKDA investigations are confidential and as such cannot be declared to a 3rd party, even if that 3rd party is in the process of buying the club that the individuals are employed by.

I too would have thought something like this would be revealed through due dilligence until the confidentiality aspect was brought to my attention.

Its there forheads that does it for me mate

Possibly you could quote the posts by Hull fans where it's been said with [icertainty[/i that the RFL [ican't[/i punish the club? I've certainly made no such assertion, although you apparently think that I have.

Whatever the problem, surely there's more to life than to be arguing and posting about it at the time you was on NYE

well according to league weekly hull won't be further punished by the rfl, but not for the reasons discussed on here in the main. seems that the rfl do not impose further punishments in this area and leave it up to uk anti doping to impose the sanctions. as i mentioned earlier and as in the majority of drugs in sport cases it is the individuals involved who are punished

however this is league weekly we are talking about so may not be 100% accurate

Wonder if they will be punished for Joe Westerman.. Same goes for Liam Watts and Richard Owen, and their clubs.

Wonder what they would have done if Rule had still been in charge? Classic RFL brush under the carpet response.

My thoughts exactly - the RFL has let UKAD do the dirty work and despite stating in the public domain last week that Hull FC had brought the game into disrepute, appear to have chosen to do nothing about it; surely that sends out completely the wrong message to everyone within and without the game?

[size=200WRONG[/size

[iChief executive Nigel Wood said: "Such behaviour is unacceptable and this case has brought the sport of rugby league into disrepute.[/i

Now where does he say that Hull FC have brought the game into disrepute?

If you're gonna have a go a trolling, try learning from a master, there are a number of them on here

Well he isn't in charge any more, he "resigned" on the day he knew he would definitely be charged.

So you can put the crusty sock back in the drawer

You're arguing semantics; if this case has brought the sport into disrepute, it follows that Hull FC are responsible for that, since they are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.

It's a pointless debate however, since the RFL appear to have opted to take the path of least resistance.