Before anybody thinks I am having a pop, I would like to make clear that I am not, if everybody who made a mistake was not allowed a second chance we would all be in trouble. What I am trying to say is that some people have an irrational dislike of our chairman and are willing to overlook certain facts to support their own view on events. It is easy to have a pop at NH but if you look at his charity he has put a lot back into the city outside of rugby. Perhaps this should be taken into consideration when judging.

The guy's spent £4million to essentially end up in the same position you were in leaguewise when he took over 12 years ago, but with an added big debt on the North Stand. I don't mind him. Have you ever listened to Athletico Mince? It's very good, and I think they base their observational comedy personas on him.

I admit I did read your post wrong and have since corrected my response. If you read my actual point the person stated NH was "a man of questionable moral standing" I simply challenged him to support that statement with the advice that he should make sure that he could support his position otherwise he could well be accused of defamation.

I think my point on our moral compass being skewed by our support for our team has in many ways been demonstrated by your own contribution regarding BC resigning for Rovers. You conviniently overlooked the recruitment of the players mentioned whilst at the same time pointing out BC's faults, a point supported by Oafy when he pointed out about the player I forgot about who Hull kept after his conviction. In effect using the decision to recruit BC as a guide it could be argued that Hull have also had some people of 'questionable moral standing' making recruitment and retention decisions. I am not saying that this is the case but what I am saying is that with this particular topic people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Not at all. I suggested paying a fee for a violent criminal could potentially be used as to support the moral questionability assertion. The counter was to bring up morally questionable signings by Hull FC. I can see why you'd want to deflect, but maybe DGM has made a good point which you can't address directly. A shame that. Do try Bob and Andy's podcast. "Eh! Eh! Do you remember, do you remember in the niiiiineteeneeeiiiiggghhhttiiies..??"

So Larroyer's playing against Doncaster next week. Interesting one, is he quota or fed trained?

The point you haven't addressed is whether Hudgell's moral standing can be brought into question by the fact he paid a fee for a convicted violent criminal. Can it, or not?

The point that you are raising that I have not addressed has not been framed as a question previously. I will give you my take on this particular situation that you have raised.

Are you actually seriously suggesting that Neil Hudgell's moral standing can be brought into question because of a single signing made by the club? Not him personally, but by the club! I would, obviously, point out the vast sums of money he has raised and donated to local charities and argue that this certainly impacts on his moral standing or is it more convenient to ignore these facts and focus on a single, albeit potentially quite serious negative.

Regarding the actual signing, yes he would have had to sanction it but it would have been the coaches target, does this mean that the coach is morally questionable? or is it MS who would have secured the signing? is he morally questionable? Are you asking me to condem one person in a group for a decision I did not agree with and one which I did not have full access to the process and thoughts behind?

It would help me frame any future replies if you could confirm if it is the issue of the fee or the violent crime that you take the most exception to? This would allow me a better understanding of your main argument.

I will say that I think it was morally wrong of the CLUB to keep him after his conviction. I personally did not want to be represented by this particular player. However I do understand that if we condem someone perpetually for foolish mistakes then what chance of reform and rehabilitation? If we travel down this dangerous road then as a society it is a short step to what we are currently seeing in the US.

In simple terms, I think the club was morally wrong to keep him after his conviction. However, regarding the resigning I think that the answer is not quite clear cut. Mainly for the reasons stated above. I would be personally reluctant to condem anyone for giving someone a chance at redemption. I would also argue that up to this point BC has repaid the faith shown in him by the club and appears to have done a great deal of maturing.

Regarding comparative morality, and in return for my reply to your question, how do you feel about the people at your club who signed or kept multiple convicted violent criminals? I am not saying your club was wrong for the same reasons I have outlined above but am just interested in your opinion.

Will you off

So in summary Rovers were morally wrong and as head of it Hudgell sanctions all decisions so DGM may be able to avoid your slander/defamation provocation.

As for Hull FC and Reardon:
"Unbe-fecking-lievable. I am ashamed of all involved in making this signing. You really couldnt make it up.
Mrs Barista • Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:18 pm • Reply with quote"

On Crookes I agreed with FC baldy who said he should be sacked and called out management's apologism.

Pryce and Feka had more distance from their crimes, but the morality was still questionable. Fortunately Feka has won awards for his community work across the city which is outstanding.

Hopefully the RFL will shortly absolve Mr H from any shortcomings in crowd control at the MPG. Once is careless, surely twice would be...?

Over 5 years without posting and then we're subjected to this.

Mrs b always posts

You only need to look at Hudgell's day job to realise that he is in a highly questionable area regarding morals. As the 9th best ambulance chaser in the country at extracting money from the NHS I'm sure we all have a lot to thank this saintly man for.

His contradictory statements and actions regarding loyalty between club and players are a matter of public record and Larroyer is but one example.

Can we get back onto the subject of Lorroyer please.

Radford said in the press conference yesterday that we are simply helping the bloke out. He's desperate to get back to match fitness and gain a contract with another club, and we are helping him do that. He will play against Donny as a trialist and we are at full cap so unable to sign him even if we wanted to.