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