Reading the full reports on the UKDA site it seems they got a low ban because they didn't lie about the offence itself but rather attempted to cover up the exact circumstances surrounding it in an effort to get Gleeson a shorter ban. Apparently the UKDA have rules in place that cover this situation with specified punishments - better organised than the RFL in that regard.

All breaches of rules and misconduct are committed by individuals. "The club" cannot infringe the rules, someone associated with the club has to carry out the infringement on behalf of it. Hull FC did not rip up the posts at Huddersfield that time. It wasnt even an employee of the club, merely spectators who aligned themselves to the club. But the club was held accountable for their actions.

In this case three employees have breached the rules, one of those was the CEO.

It would be premature to suggest that the club should be penalised in any way. But it would be odd if the RFL did not investigate whether the involvement of such a senior employee means that the club should be held accountable at least in part.

So if I indulge in ANY illegal act on company time, my company are responsible for me doing so?

In a previous job, the Quality Manager was found trying to set up an illegal deal with a contractor that would have netted him a nice backhander. He was sacked without any comeback on the company as he had done it without the knowledge of anyone else.

One of my former customers had an employee who deliberately caused equipment to fail so that he could farm out the repairs to his mates and collect backhanders. This went on for a number of years before he was caught. He was sacked, prosecuted, and jailed. Again there was no comeback as nobody else at the company was aware of what he was doing.

This isn't quite as clear cut as you seem to think. There is a principle of individual responsibility in law that sometimes trumps corporate responsibility. Given that none of us know the full details of what went on or who else may or may not have been complicit it's probably wise not to make definite statements about where responsibility lies.

In most cases though there is multiple complicity involved in rule breaking, and normally a specific rule has been broken. Even in the Huddersfield incident the club clearly breached the rule about controlling the behaviour of their fans. At the moment it's not clear if a specific rule has been broken.

I agree that the RFL [ishould[/i investigate further but experience leads me to doubt whether they will. They have a history of kicking awkward things into the long grass, and if they turn up involvement by the previous Chairwoman and/or coach then thing will get very awkward indeed. The cynic in me suspects that they'd rather it all just went away quietly, and the bans handed out by the UKDA offers them a chance to let it do just that.

sportinglife.aol.co.uk/rugby-lea ... -after-ban a few on here should read the last paragrapgh, mainly those from east hull and those insinuating its a club culture at hull fc once again our club has had its name dragged through the mud by the past board and ceo, thankfully they have all gone, now its a new year, new regime, new future!

sportinglife.aol.co.uk/rugby-lea ... -after-ban a few on here should read the last paragrapgh, mainly those from east hull and those insinuating its a club culture at hull fc once again our club has had its name dragged through the mud by the past board and ceo, thankfully they have all gone, now its a new year, new regime, new future!

Why is it rugby league is constantly being dragged into the gutter by the wigin contingent.

Here's a list of the highlights of our previous board:

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).

Any more to add to that?! So glad we've had a clear out!

In short, yes.

There are exceptions, referred to as 'frolics,' whereby the employee can be considered to have been acting in their own right rather than conducting the employers business; I would confidently argue however that this instance would be considered a 'detour' rather than a 'frolic,' which means that the employer remains liable.

Before you reply, please bear in mind the truism that repetition does not establish validity.

You mean the same way it wasn't fair to punish Bulls with a bizarre points deduction over the salary cap due to Harrisgate, when the new administration had helped with the investigation and people directly involved had left the club?

But punish they did, nevertheless.

I'm not sure whether any punishment is in order based on the facts of the case as far as we have been made aware of them. But if any IS, then the same logic should hold as did with us.

Cool. That's despite the examples I provided where that clearly didn't apply?

I could have added another case in the USA where several directors of a company were convicted of insider dealing and went to prison. Their company escaped unscathed.

Think we'll agree to disagree on this one.

[life of brian mode]All 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.