Thats where the grey area is. It doesnt actually have to be written into his contract about damage to the brand and bringing the club into disrepute. It can actually go unwritten because all professional sports people should be aware of the detrimental impact made by this kind of thing. Guilty or not he has been charged. That in itself can be classed as bringing the game into disrepute. Guilty or not he has damaged our brand. What happens if he is fund not guilty is a whole different kettle of fish.

I know, thats why i said it to get a bite!



I dont think they will suspend him. Another option weve not touched on would simply to offer him a compromise agreement and pay him off. May be in both parties interest to take it.

Doesnt have to impact on his job here, his job is in the public domain so bring in the brand impact weve been speaking about.

Could it not be seen as "gross misconduct" (what this consists of should be set out somewhere)?

Hutch was sacked for that, so no reason why A N Other couldn't be. Can't imagine that there isn't a standard set of conditions in players' contracts.

I suppose he could be found entirely innocent and go on to score 30 tries for us next season? (okay sideways tries, I know)

Indeed.

Its highly likely it would be dismissal for gross misconduct on the grounds of bringing the club into disrepute. For clarity the grounds can be set in the contracts of employment but dont have to be.

For example, my employment contact states that i will be subject to the internal disciplinary process if deemed to have acted inappropriately in my role. Inappropriate is subjective and depends on the situation. Gross misconduct will lead to immediate dismissal. Gross Misconduct is subjective and again depends on the situation and the offence.

All very vague but useful when wanting to dismiss without reason!!

maybe its not his only indiscretion

Was it the Hull players who signed some kind of agreement covering their expected behaviour or was it another club?

Seem to remember someone doing it.

Going to have to disagree with you here Dave. I don't think its grey at all.

He can't be guilty of bringing the club into disrepute merely by being charged with something he may be innocent of.

If the club wanted to suspend him pending the court case it would be able to but it would be very badly advised indeed to dismiss him on the basis of as yet unproven allegations.

Or if they're crap!

Agree with you there Nobeer, some here are effectively saying you can dismiss on the basis of a charge alone which is complete and utter rubbish.
If a person is not guilty of a charge then where would the disrepute or brand damage be if the person is innocent of said charge.
Obviously a guilty verdict could put a person in the realms of gross misconduct etc.
Dismissing on the basis of a charge alone without a resultant would see an employee win a tribunal even if that charge were to be upheld further down the line.

I have to say what an absolute load of tosh this thread is with a lot of people discussing things they know nothing about.
All we need are the torches and pitchforks.
This is being blown so out of proportion I think people are losing sight of the facts.
What he has done supposedly, is stupid. It's not worth sacking imo but I suppose it suits a lot of peoples' agendas this way.
And before the obvious posts, no I'm not Gareth, a relative or friend just someone who is keeping a level head and more interested in the club as a whole and what best suits them.

To be fair what he has allegedly done is more than just "stupid". It is illegal and dishonest. If he is guilty then it is a serious matter, as was the offence for which he was convicted previously.

He gets paid a lot of money to play for Hull FC and should have no need to engage in the sort of activity he has been accused of.

If he is convicted I would not be at all surprised if the club look to get rid of him.

I agree that it's blown out of proportion. Lend us £100,000 would you?

I agree he gets paid a lot of money and shouldn't need to engage in illegal activities and for the amount he might have made by committing this dishonsety offence you have to wonder where his brain was.
It just winds me up people banging on about stuff they have no knowledge or understanding of though.
Let's see what happens to him at court when he attends for sentencing before people make knee jerk reactions and assumptions.

He hasn't been convicted yet!

The crime that he has been accused of is hardly 'stupid'. If proven it will have been a long term fraud that netted £100k from members of the public who would have handed over their cash in good faith. There are very few companies who would not dismiss an employee found guilty of such a crime. I'd certainly expect to lose [imy[/i job in such a circumstance, and I'm not sure why you think that Raynor should be any different - especially given his chequered history.

You've gotta love unintentional irony.

I have £100,000 in £50 notes. The colour is a little lighter than you might be used to but they're genuine... honest.

I like it when people refer to things like racially-motivated assault as a 'chequered history'.

I wasn't only thinking of his previous convictions, hence the somewhat vague phrase.

It was a black & white case...

erm.... hang on...

As I've said many times before, professional sport seems to exist in some sort of moral vaccuum. From the judiciary, to employers (the clubs) to the fans, there seems to be a lot more leeway afforded to certain members of society based solely on how well they can kick a ball, or how fast they can run.

Not just professional sportsmen. It extends to rock stars, actors and anyone who may be considered to be a "celebrity".

Does that include Hutchie?