??

I don't like the idea of banning media organisations but it has to be said Burnsy's crusade against FC is pathetic and when you think he has also alienated himself from other clubs like Grimsby and Hull City then maybe Hull have done the right thing. The bloke is a complete and utter clown and I don't know how he keeps his job.

Times Online article timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... dium-.html

Times Online article timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... dium-.html

Quote Canyoubelieveit="Canyoubelieveit"Times Online article timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... dium-.html'" get worm in hand to write to them!

Quote Canyoubelieveit="Canyoubelieveit"Times Online article timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... dium-.html'" get worm in hand to write to them!

This is going to stop him talking crap about Hull FC though. Given his professionalism, it's probably made it worse

The Times wrote:

"A diet of "acceptable" stories squeezed through the Hull PR sausage-making machine is no way to communicate with fans, let alone the wider public, who seem to have been overlooked in this indulgent spat.
It's also a self-serving policy by a club seemingly happy to inhabit its little bubble. Too many clubs have taken the anodyne route of public relations spin and communiques that often smack more of paranoia than any genuine insight. This isn't communication, it is stifling debate and free speech"

and I couldn't agree more, petty and childish are words that spring to mind.

that is an excellent phrase

Novel name for our chief exec

I listened to the burns rant and I agree that he overstepped the mark in some of his statements. I do think the irony of the fans being up in arms is that he was basically agreeing with what 99% of what the FC fans were saying, both on here, on phone ins and all the ones I generally know.

The 2 main gripes Hull have had with RH is the Cooke story and the Reardon story, both of which although not in Hulls favour (and in fairness reported a bit too vehemently) have been true and reortable. In fact I'd go as far as to say the station would be doing a disservice to the public if they hadn't reported the incidents.

Banning the station will serve no real benefit in fact it will be more detrimental to the club in the long run, love it or hate it RH is the local radio station with the widest listener base. The club should have risen above this, released a statement of displeasure and even complained to the BBC director general and the indepent complaints board but taken the moral high ground and carried on in dialogue.

The easiest way for your club to halt this type of incident is really to firstly aim away from its own feet with the shot gun if that proves difficult then at least refrain from pulling the trigger and emptying both barrells into their feet.
If the club (and Hull City) were performing well then I feel this type of PR disaster would not be occuring or if it did it would be last weeks news, but as the club is percieved by its fan base to be struggling then its blown out of proportion and I believe an element of diversionary tactics is employed to 'get the fans off the clubs back'

I know I am probably biaised so although I feel I am being fair it may have a red view on it. But lets face it this kind of action does nothing for the club, the city or the sport.

Thing is, the hierarchy at Hull don't like the sports team at RH due to the cooke scenario. That will never change until teh personnel do.

whats the odds on Burnsie quoting it tonight and calling Rule the sausage jockey of the FC PR sausage making machine

I still fail to see the reasoning behind this. Humberside were correct on the Cooke story and in fact got a scoop, surely there bosses would have been pleased they broke this story. I can understand hull not liking the story but it was in all essence true. What should humberside have done, ignore the lead.