I'm sorry to hear some players invested heavily and lost, so the clubs recruitment is in a mess due to players taking a personal risk and investing their money? Club sponsor or not unless the club advised them to do it then its done at their own personal risk. Whilst its admirable the club have done this, its done it no favours on or off the field and finishing in the bottom 4 is actually a reality and shows sentiment doesn't bring success.

It may sound harsh but if I make an investment in to one of our customers I don't expect my employer to help with my losses should the risk not work out.

If true it explains the retention of players we all thought should have been replaced and Radford’s not accountable for these decisions.
On the Taylor suspension, I was under the impression Carlos was the culprit having pulled and turned McShane’s leg. The incident was put on report. Any ideas what the second charge was for?

Agreed as that’s the only incident I could see and as you say that was Carlos pulling Mcshanes leg the only other one was when Mitch Clark was tackled and went down after playing the ball but didn’t seem anything in that either.

Said about Minichiello and his lost investment months ago when his contract was announced. With regards to Taylor's ban, the one in Clark is an absolute joke

Is there a case for the club to appeal, surely they have access to footage.

Taylor1 Match Penalty Notice
Rule – 15.1(i) Detail – Defender uses any part of his body forcefully to twist, bend or otherwise apply pressure to the limb or limbs of an opposing player in a way that involves an unacceptable risk of injury to that player. Grade – B
Decision

The RFL don't even know who plays for which team....

Sooooo, who pushed who in who’s face first and who retaiated by pushing who in who’s face retaliation is the worst offence.
In relation to Taylor on McShane, it was clearly Carlos, so do the club accuse him to reprieve Taylor???

Austin decision includes the phrase "Footage inconclusive".

Another reason why televised games are a lottery.

My sympathys over the taylor 3 match ban,if that was one of the blue eyed boys o'loughlin for example it would have been no charge.The rfl are diabolically biased.

Hull surely need to appeal. I was at the game, and have watched the incidents back a few times. Nothing in them. I’d be severely brassed off if it was a Cas player with a ban for those. The McShane one nothing there at all, the Clarke one just one of those unfortunate things that can happen in a tackle.

Whilst we all agree with you there is not a chance an appeal would get the player off.
Can you imagine if on appeal the charges were dropped how that would reflect on the original panel and the conflict then in the RFL.
We know they are biased and in this case not fit for purpose but the best we could get if the club do appeal is a reduction of one match.

You’d hope the rfl becomes obsolete and the super league chairman can take control then all this might finally get sorted once and for all, or have I got it massively wrong

If I have, then what’s the solution to this incompetence

We lose out because there will be multiple camera angles for the panel to look at in taylor's cases but only 1 angle for most other players

Works for Wigan and O'Loughlin