The guy's spent £4million to essentially end up in the same position you were in leaguewise when he took over 12 years ago, but with an added big debt on the North Stand. I don't mind him. Have you ever listened to Athletico Mince? It's very good, and I think they base their observational comedy personas on him.

I admit I did read your post wrong and have since corrected my response. If you read my actual point the person stated NH was "a man of questionable moral standing" I simply challenged him to support that statement with the advice that he should make sure that he could support his position otherwise he could well be accused of defamation.

I think my point on our moral compass being skewed by our support for our team has in many ways been demonstrated by your own contribution regarding BC resigning for Rovers. You conviniently overlooked the recruitment of the players mentioned whilst at the same time pointing out BC's faults, a point supported by Oafy when he pointed out about the player I forgot about who Hull kept after his conviction. In effect using the decision to recruit BC as a guide it could be argued that Hull have also had some people of 'questionable moral standing' making recruitment and retention decisions. I am not saying that this is the case but what I am saying is that with this particular topic people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Not at all. I suggested paying a fee for a violent criminal could potentially be used as to support the moral questionability assertion. The counter was to bring up morally questionable signings by Hull FC. I can see why you'd want to deflect, but maybe DGM has made a good point which you can't address directly. A shame that. Do try Bob and Andy's podcast. "Eh! Eh! Do you remember, do you remember in the niiiiineteeneeeiiiiggghhhttiiies..??"

So Larroyer's playing against Doncaster next week. Interesting one, is he quota or fed trained?

Are you suggesting the fee is the issue? or the fact that he has been violent? If it is the fee then are you saying morality has a price? If it is the violent aspect then raising the Hull FC signing's has a direct relevance to the argument you put forward as this could be comparative morality in action and supports my earlier moral compass assertion. I am not attempting to deflect but simply responding to the arguments you are using. I will state that I was very much against resigning BC and fully agreed with Rovers releasing him. I found his past behaviour questionable at best. At no point did I defend this signing, or at least I did not intend to.

I may be missing something but I am struggling to see what I have not addressed directly. I simply challenged DGM to support his statement with the caveat that it should be provable, I would have thought that was fairly clear. It was you who brought BC's signing into the argument I simply responded with the argument that using this could potentially raise questions regarding your own recruitment strategy and gave several examples.

The point you haven't addressed is whether Hudgell's moral standing can be brought into question by the fact he paid a fee for a convicted violent criminal. Can it, or not?

The point that you are raising that I have not addressed has not been framed as a question previously. I will give you my take on this particular situation that you have raised.

Are you actually seriously suggesting that Neil Hudgell's moral standing can be brought into question because of a single signing made by the club? Not him personally, but by the club! I would, obviously, point out the vast sums of money he has raised and donated to local charities and argue that this certainly impacts on his moral standing or is it more convenient to ignore these facts and focus on a single, albeit potentially quite serious negative.

Regarding the actual signing, yes he would have had to sanction it but it would have been the coaches target, does this mean that the coach is morally questionable? or is it MS who would have secured the signing? is he morally questionable? Are you asking me to condem one person in a group for a decision I did not agree with and one which I did not have full access to the process and thoughts behind?

It would help me frame any future replies if you could confirm if it is the issue of the fee or the violent crime that you take the most exception to? This would allow me a better understanding of your main argument.

I will say that I think it was morally wrong of the CLUB to keep him after his conviction. I personally did not want to be represented by this particular player. However I do understand that if we condem someone perpetually for foolish mistakes then what chance of reform and rehabilitation? If we travel down this dangerous road then as a society it is a short step to what we are currently seeing in the US.

In simple terms, I think the club was morally wrong to keep him after his conviction. However, regarding the resigning I think that the answer is not quite clear cut. Mainly for the reasons stated above. I would be personally reluctant to condem anyone for giving someone a chance at redemption. I would also argue that up to this point BC has repaid the faith shown in him by the club and appears to have done a great deal of maturing.

Regarding comparative morality, and in return for my reply to your question, how do you feel about the people at your club who signed or kept multiple convicted violent criminals? I am not saying your club was wrong for the same reasons I have outlined above but am just interested in your opinion.

Will you off

So in summary Rovers were morally wrong and as head of it Hudgell sanctions all decisions so DGM may be able to avoid your slander/defamation provocation.



As for Hull FC and Reardon:
"Unbe-fecking-lievable. I am ashamed of all involved in making this signing. You really couldnt make it up.
Mrs Barista • Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:18 pm • Reply with quote"

On Crookes I agreed with FC baldy who said he should be sacked and called out management's apologism.

Pryce and Feka had more distance from their crimes, but the morality was still questionable. Fortunately Feka has won awards for his community work across the city which is outstanding.

Hopefully the RFL will shortly absolve Mr H from any shortcomings in crowd control at the MPG. Once is careless, surely twice would be...?

Do you know for a fact that Hudgell sanctions ALL decisions at the club?

If you read my post you would see I stated I thought it was morally wrong to keep BC after his conviction, but did put caveats that could justify his resigning, you seem to have misunderstood that slightly.

The original post was that DGM should support his statements with facts regarding the individual, at which point you jumped in with a decision made by the club, albeit one NH would have been involved in so my original assertion still stands.

Interesting point regarding Pryce and Feka and lapsed time. What is an appropriate amount of time to sign a player after a conviction for violence? I am not saying Hull were wrong to sign any of these players as once a conviction is spent people must and should have a chance to re-bulid their lives. For me the biggest issue with the Reardon signing was the timing in relation to the laudable stance taken by the club regarding domestic violence.

Again with Hudgell, crowd control at the MPG was poor (I don't want to break the sites swearing policy son had to go with poor), yes in hind sight it was not adequate but can the blame be laid at his door? did he state how many stewards were required or was it the clubs mistake?

Over 5 years without posting and then we're subjected to this.

Mrs b always posts

You only need to look at Hudgell's day job to realise that he is in a highly questionable area regarding morals. As the 9th best ambulance chaser in the country at extracting money from the NHS I'm sure we all have a lot to thank this saintly man for.

His contradictory statements and actions regarding loyalty between club and players are a matter of public record and Larroyer is but one example.

Can we get back onto the subject of Lorroyer please.

Radford said in the press conference yesterday that we are simply helping the bloke out. He's desperate to get back to match fitness and gain a contract with another club, and we are helping him do that. He will play against Donny as a trialist and we are at full cap so unable to sign him even if we wanted to.

Unless a player or 2 go out to Bradford on a season long loan in the next couple of weeks

Radford should be helping his own players out with match fitness not the snail eating frog who took the when awarded a generous contract

Classy.

The supporters showing the same amount of class as Grudgell

Wow.

Changing le subjecte does anyone know what channel le crufts is on this year??

What is it with you lot and Hudgell? Like the rest of us I am sure he has his faults but ambulance chaser extracting money from the NHS!

If, god forbid, you or yours had an injury caused by somebody else's fault that meant you could not work would you simply shrug your shoulders and accept the impact that this would have on your family or seek redress?

If the NHS caused this would you accept it and say oh well the NHS needs the money more than I do and take the hit?

Well if the answer is that you could accept the hit on your finances then well done you, unfortunately the vast majority of people cannot afford weeks or months off work or perhaps even permanent injury impacting on their ability to provide for their family.

The sad fact is that the NHS does not always admit their mistakes and offer redress, I know this from very recent experience with a close family member, and often the only recourse is via the legal route.

As for the money his firm wins, do you think he keeps it or does it go to the injured party? I am sure that there is a hefty fee but if it is provable that a company has been negligent and it has caused injury or suffering then surely it is only morally correct that they should see that the injury party is compensated for lost earnings at the very least?

Regarding Kevin Laroyyer, if the club have treated him as he says, I am not saying it hasn't but we only have his version of events, then I do believe there are moral and ethical questions to answer. I feel that if all is as he says it does not reflect well on my club.

Please! Dont make me laugh, for every genuine claim, must be 20 fraudulent ones, assisted by the likes of hudgel, the blame game as become a complete sponge on society, stealing tax payers money and raising insurance premiums for the rest of us, you speak like a veteren whiplash claimer

I bet half the people who are slagging hudgell off have made a whiplash claim and gladly taken the money for no real injury as regards to larroyer he wasn't the same since he had his bad injury and it was common knowledge to most fans that he would be leaving at the end of last season whether contracted or not

Dont give a flying one about Hudgell - what i dont get is that a team that is coming across as a bit underdone is allowing a trialist it has no interest or ties in to take up a position in our final trial match when we should be concentrating on our

If we can move on a youngster on a season long loan we'll sign larroyer