sorry all knowing bigguy.
Your right im amazed.

Not an admirer of the Guardian,but as they demonstrated great prescience,long before the 2nd interview with
Gleeson on 20th September and action against Rule in October,I should respect them for [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/aug/07/richard-agar-hull-wakefield-trinityTHIS[/url

I am also quite surprised that coaches who had left Hull,prior to Richard Agar,had not hinted at the team selection by Kath Hetherington.

FC supporters cannot,in all seriousness,suggest confidentiality concerning the UKAD investigation and then praise the new messiah for his actions.
I do appreciate that after having to sell Crooks and Schofield,take over Gateshead,deal with Lloyd and Wilby et.al having a decent owner would be a pleasing experience.

It's probably best if Hull FC and their followers give up any further thoughts of a cover-up.You're not very good at it.

Oh i don't know, we covered up that Agar scandal thing quite well!!

Woods stated that the [icase[/i had brought RL into disrepute. That's been interpreted slightly differently by different people. The RFL were always highly unlikely to take any further action - not least because of the huge can of worms it would have opened.


Cas were fined because their response to the incident was found to be inadequate. How justified that judgement was may be open to question, but the two cases are pretty dissimilar. In fact the Rulegate case is dissimilar to any other - in UKDA's own words it's unprecedented.

As I said on the VT, the argument about bringing the game into disrepute is one of semantics; in my view, if the case brought the game into disrepute then by extension, the club did, since they're vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. As for the can of worms issue - I don't think that's a good reason [inot[/i to take further action; on the contrary, it's a compelling reason to do so.

For me, the governing body has to be seen to be responding robustly to what is a massive breach of trust by paid officers at Hull FC - if they don't, then they could be perceived as brushing it under the carpet and that sets a dangerous precedent for future transgressions, both in terms of removing the disincentive to act in this way and in terms of undermining their own authority when they do impose sanctions on clubs in future.

interesting to see some call for no penalties for hull fc becasue of the actions of the past owners, and yet were happy for trinity to have sanctions against them for the state that we were in before mr glover took us over.

People who dismiss things as 'semantics' fail to understand the importance of how language is used in situations like this.

The RFL never, ever choose to open cans of worms. We've been on the receiving end of them bottling it before so I guess you could count this as karma. They will have looked at the potential benefits against the substantial downsides and have judged that it's just not worth the candle. The people found guilty of the cover-up have been removed from the game for substantial periods - possible forever - and that gave them the opportunity to draw a line under the whole affair and move on.

People who focus on semantics often do so because they know they're wrong on the substance of the issue. It is possible to be technically correct but still wrong - as I believe you are in this case.

Your position seems to be one of accepting mediocrity and being prepared to horse-trade one failure of governance off against another; in all honesty, would you have such a laissez-faire attitude about the way the game is run if the club at the heart of this scandal was not the one you support?

Understanding something is not the same as focusing on it. And people who claim to only be 'technically' wrong typically have a weak argument.

My attitude is one of facing the reality of the situation based on years of experience. And my attitude to this particular case would have been the same regardless of the club involved. The RFL is a hugely imperfect organisation that, on balance, just about does more good than harm. Ranting about it on here will achieve precisely nothing, however. They've made worse decisions in the past and will doubtless do so again in the future. If that appears to be a fatalistic and cynical appraisal then that's probably because it is.

Allam owns Hull City not Pearson. Pearson owns Hull Fc so his loyalties would lie with what is best for Hull FC which he has stated publicly.

On the first point, I don't believe you; the rest, I find rather depressing, although I guess imperfect, failing organisations rely on the apathy of people like you to ensure they are allowed to maintain the status quo.

Me, I prefer the concept of continuous improvement - knowing that something is wrong is, in my world, a reason to try to fix it.

Let's call it quits there - I'm sure it's becoming dull for everyone else and I'm beginning to feel a bit like SmokeyTA, which is a very uncomfortable realisation.

Ahh get over it, coming over to the dark side can be uncomfortable but its great once you are here. You get to watch people get strangely upset at the most inoffensive things.

Plus we have scotch and a selection of fine cheeses

Hmm - they are actually two of my favourite things...

You could be brothers!

very old news , surprised it took so long to get out in public domain

Allam knows nowt about running a professional soccer club, Pearson runs it and that's exactly where he wants to be and where his heart is.

Adam Pearsons never been a particularly wealthy man, not on the scale of club ownership, where do you think he raised the money to buy FC?

Who do you honestly think Pearson has allegiances to and if push comes to shove which club will he opt to go with?

As I said earlier Pearson has cleverly put himself in a position where he gets to protect the interests of Hull City.

Nothing, absolutely nothing that the Premier League may wish to introduce could trump a legally binding tenancy agreement. The lawyers would have a field day and the losers would undoubtedly be the Premier League



Go on, tell us





You forget the not insubstantial matter of who owns the stadium and with whom Hull FC signed the lease. Hull City Council own the stadium, Hull FC signed a lease with them.

I realise it may upset you but we're safe. Please feel free to bookmark that remark for further use.

If and it is a big if the Premier League decided that clubs could not share with Rugby Clubs (either code). They would simply add this to the existing criteria for membership of the Premier League leaving the clubs to make their own decision on if they wished to continue membership of the PL

Publicly stated he made his 1st offer for hull as far back as 2002,long before the Allams came on the sporting scene.Perhaps Peter Wilkinson is his backer,as when this was the case at city a few years back? Peter needs to spend his £350m on something

That is a possibility, however remote. It would still however leave them open to legal challenge by restraining trade. Wembley Stadium, owned by the FA, is used for any number of events other than soccer, how would that square with any dictat?

Even then, should the Premier League introduce such a rule, Hull FC's lease is with the Council and until such time that the Council may want to sell the stadium (a field-day for any Philadelphia lawyer in itself), their tenancy is secure.

I'm not saying its likely to happen and being a RL man I'd prefer Hull City (& Wigan Athletic) to slip down the league structure a bit. However regardless of who Hull FC have their lease with, Pearson as owner, can choose to accept a cash incentive to vacate the KC if one was forthcoming and no one could do anything about it.

In his position as boss at Hull City, we're they to win promotion and be told by the PL that they could only take their place if they operated out of a single sport stadium, IMO he would choose his more luvrituve football job over his position at FC.

And yet, in all of that, you have forgotten one pertinent point. The custodians of the KC Stadium are the elected representatives of Hull City Council. There is not a cat in hell's chance of them releasing the owner of Hull FC from his obligations at the KC. It would be a political price they are not willing to pay.

Male no mistake, Pearson may currently be employed by Allam at Hull City AFC, I doubt he will be in the same position in 12 months time. He hasn't bought Hull FC for a quick buck, neither has he bought them as proxy of Allam. Allam could've bought the club without any need for any of the convoluted conspiracy theories that have been bandies around.

We'll still be playing at the KC, as joint tenants with Hull City in ten, twenty or more years time.

If the PL do ever insist that a newly promoted Hull City must play in a football-only stadium, it would be Hull City looking for a new home.

What happens to Wakefield if the Newmarket idea doesn't happen? There is a big chance it may be thrown out by the planners,then what? Re-develop BV,or demotion to the championship?

Define BIG chance? personally i think there is a possibility, perhaps an equal possibility, but not a BIG chance.
How you KNOW there IS a BIG chance, must mean you are somehow involved with the process, which i doubt.
Pedantry over with, i think it will go through, but IF it didnt, id say look at upgrading BV, some of which we are on with already to satisfy our franchise for 2012-2015.