Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:37 am  

fc casual wrote:

I’m with Codhead in that this will be thrown way into the long grass as I’m sure Hull aren’t the only team to have this problem, our problem is that we got caught trying to cover it up.

Ah right, if everyone's doing it that's ok then...

You surely can't be serious? If this had been a case of Gleeson took the tablet without knowing the facts about it, and without consulting with the conditioner, then it wouldn't be half as bad. It is the fact that our then CEO, a person with a lot of responsibility at the club, sat down with Cooper and Gleeson and fabricated some statements for each to give. These were both withdrawn by each at a later date and a more truthful account given. To me, and correct me if I am wrong, but that means the statements previous were lies. They may have been trying to protect people, but they were lies given as evidence to the national anti-doping organisation.

As a club we are made to take this upon us, and have to suffer the consequences, which for arguments sake, and for the sake of our sport, I hope are severe. It's disgusting.

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 12:58 am  

Faithful One wrote:

Ah right, if everyone's doing it that's ok then...

You surely can't be serious? If this had been a case of Gleeson took the tablet without knowing the facts about it, and without consulting with the conditioner, then it wouldn't be half as bad. It is the fact that our then CEO, a person with a lot of responsibility at the club, sat down with Cooper and Gleeson and fabricated some statements for each to give. These were both withdrawn by each at a later date and a more truthful account given. To me, and correct me if I am wrong, but that means the statements previous were lies. They may have been trying to protect people, but they were lies given as evidence to the national anti-doping organisation.

As a club we are made to take this upon us, and have to suffer the consequences, which for arguments sake, and for the sake of our sport, I hope are severe. It's disgusting.

Thats not my point, in my opinion i think it could be a can of worms for the RFL if they dig to much into it thats all.

I think our club been court out for its wrongs is a good thing in respect it shows whats been going on behind the scenes but i'm sure there are plenty of examples that have never come out not only from Hull Fc but all the teams but the RFL don't exactly help themselves with the way they run things, the punishments they hand out (Rule should be banned for life imo) and the amount of loop holes etc.

I'll take what ever punishment they see fit for the good of the game and no doubt take the poop at various grounds for it in the near future.

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:55 am  

Kosh wrote:

1) It's not a subjective statement because I'm not stating anything. I'm expressing a doubt. Do you really think that Rule made the decisions on who we signed?
Matty Head seems to think he did.
3) There was a lot of moaning on here. Elsewhere we had record merchandise and season ticket sales despite the rubbish being served up on the pitch. This suggests that the vast majority of fans weren't bothered by the 'spin' in the slightest.So season ticket sales last year weren't down on the year before then? And did you forget about the fall of around 2000 in attendances, or did you just leave that out because it doesn't suit your argument?
5) I think someone else can clarify (forgotten who), but I'm pretty sure that the 'boozy weekend' was nothing of the sort and his absence for that game had been planned long in advance.
So, you don't know that it didn't happen then? Regardless of whether it was 'planned long in advance', the club was in crisis and he had no business going off on a jolly when we had an important game on.
6) So it was Rule's job to predict changes in Government policy and personnel assignments in the overseas immigration offices was it? Really? Changes that caught the whole of RL on both sides of the world by surprise?
Some were caught out by it, some weren't. I personally believe staying on top of things like that is precisely the kind of thing a Chief Exec is being paid for. Even if i concede your point though, the whole situation was handled incredibly badly in terms of how it was communicated to the fans.

We can argue the toss all day about the details of the individual cock-ups and instances of bad judgement, but there's no denying there's a fair old list of examples of mismanagement. For whatever reason though, the prevailing opinion on here always seemed to be that whenever something good happened at the club, it was down to good old Jim, while if he did something that the fans didn't like, it must have been because Kath made him do it. I could never understand why he was given so much benefit of the doubt by most fans, especially since nobody could really say what his job description actually entailed!

So now we've got a situation where there are two instances of him being a proven liar, and he's banned from the game in disgrace, yet some fans still want to claim that, on the whole he did a good job, it's absolutely ludicrous!

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:37 am  

Garry Brindley Esq. wrote:

We can argue the toss all day about the details of the individual cock-ups and instances of bad judgement, but there's no denying there's a fair old list of examples of mismanagement. For whatever reason though, the prevailing opinion on here always seemed to be that whenever something good happened at the club, it was down to good old Jim, while if he did something that the fans didn't like, it must have been because Kath made him do it. I could never understand why he was given so much benefit of the doubt by most fans, especially since nobody could really say what his job description actually entailed!

So now we've got a situation where there are two instances of him being a proven liar, and he's banned from the game in disgrace, yet some fans still want to claim that, on the whole he did a good job, it's absolutely ludicrous!

Those who defend(ed) him were just those who were taken in by his spin

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:07 am  

See Gleeson has been speaking to Max Cliffords people, looks like he's going to try and pin this all on the others, or FC.

[Kosh]

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:55 am  

Garry Brindley Esq. wrote:

We can argue the toss all day about the details of the individual cock-ups and instances of bad judgement, but there's no denying there's a fair old list of examples of mismanagement.

Good job nobody is denying it then. The worst one - by far - was the appointment and retention of Agar. How much of that was down to Rule is open to question of course.

Garry Brindley Esq. wrote:

For whatever reason though, the prevailing opinion on here always seemed to be that whenever something good happened at the club, it was down to good old Jim, while if he did something that the fans didn't like, it must have been because Kath made him do it. I could never understand why he was given so much benefit of the doubt by most fans, especially since nobody could really say what his job description actually entailed!

Rule was given credit for those aspects of the day-to-day running of the club that it could be reasonably assumed fell under his direct control - in particular marketing activities as that was his original function and background. He was cut slack on those aspects that were unlikely to have been under his sole control, such as hirings and firings etc. He was given so much benefit of the doubt precisely because there was uncertainty about how far his authority went - that's pretty much what benefit of the doubt is all about.

Garry Brindley Esq. wrote:

So now we've got a situation where there are two instances of him being a proven liar, and he's banned from the game in disgrace, yet some fans still want to claim that, on the whole he did a good job, it's absolutely ludicrous!

People are simply saying that regardless of how badly he performed in certain areas - and nobody has defended him when he has been proven to have fouled up - that doesn't change the fact that he did some things right during his tenure. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that the balance is positive mind.

[Kosh]

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:58 am  

east hull FC fan wrote:

See Gleeson has been speaking to Max Cliffords people, looks like he's going to try and pin this all on the others, or FC.

I'm not sure how he thinks he's going to manage that given the personal responsibility for checking the banned substances list that's enshrined in all anti-doping rules. My guess would be he's just after a payday from the press stories rather than attempting any legal action.

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:10 am  

Kosh wrote:

My guess would be he's just after a payday from the press stories rather than attempting any legal action.

Other than a short life of hard-graft in the lower leagues from the 2013 season, it's difficult to see where else he's gonna get a payday

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:21 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Other than a short life of hard-graft in the lower leagues from the 2013 season, it's difficult to see where else he's gonna get a payday

He could work on Sean Longs dads market stall

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:23 am  

Now the dust has settled (slightly), do we think there will be sanctions against the club?

In our favour I see:
None of the convicted are at the club, and neither are others who may be involved (Hetherington, Agar, Long)
Follow-up tests in the last 6 months have all been negative
Further action would see potentially a legal case between someone who's just put a few mill into one the comp's best supported clubs and the Hetheringtons who seem beloved by the RFL - not sure they'd want a public bunfight over it.
When Keiron Cunningham got done for HCG, he escaped punishment because a Saints conditioner had administered it to him without his knowledge. IMO this is more evidence of a club's complicity in a drugs culture than what has transpired at FC, and AFAIK Saints weren't punished as a club? Maybe someone can correct me on this?

Against us:
Club CEO orchestrated cover-up
We employed an incompetent conditioner who didn't exercise the right level of control
There's been shedloads of bad PR for the game.

Thoughts?