did you miss that old chap?

Sorry but you are missing the point of the OP & obviously fail to understand the true role of a CEO in an organisation.

Rule is amply qualified to organise a small - medium sized business such as Hull FC, do your own research and check out his credentials. Again you do not have to have been a CEO previously to get a job such as this(this works in all walks of life BTW) If you can demonstrate effective management skills & have been successful then there is no reason why someone like that would not be employed. He got the job & his employers thought he was the best person for the role.
Who would you have employed instead & why?

You mention employing dozens of people, well actually that's a Human Resources task generally (with the aid of departmental maanagers etc), few employees will be directly interviewed by a CEO especially when the majority of the employees are specific to a trade where a CEO has not the relevant trade experience (Rugby League in this instance) He will likely oversee the process but not always been involved in every employment opportunity.
DELEGATING is an essential managment skill. If you fail to do this then you get swamped & cannot carry out effectively your role as a supervisor/manager/CEO or any other role where you have responsibility for employees.

A CEO as I've said at least twice now is an organiser, co-ordinator, communicator & decision maker. In the main Rule has fulfilled his task as CEO, yes there are certain things that have gone wrong but how many things have gone wrong that were a direct fault of Rule himself??

I dont know the answer because I'm not involved with the hierachy in Hull FC, however as CEO Rule has taken the responsibility when things have gone wrong that were down to the club as a whole. This doesn't mean that he was directly responsible if another member of staff made a mistake(which humans invariably do) and a fans perception of a mistake(for instance Reardon) isn't always the correct assumption if you do not have all the facts to hand.

I fully understand the role of a CEO and I think you have the wrong end of the stick in terms of employee numbers - I was using it as a guauge to the size of the business, not suggesting the CEO is responsible for the recruitment of each and every one. I was merely saying that a company the size (and stature in the game) of Hull FC should have looked for someone with experience at that level, not the former marketing manager. I'm not saying rule isn't doing an adequate job, however his appointment is indicative of the recent key appointments at the club. As a club we should be looking for the best of the best in key roles, not taking the path of least resistance

As for who I would have appointed into a role 18 months or so ago for which I'm not responsible, I don't have a clue, but what I do know is I'd have gone out to look for someone with a proven track record and paid the going rate for him/her

Rule has overseen the award of one of only two grade 'A' licences in SL. Most CEO's at league clubs would see this as probably their highest priority at the moment. The guaranteed income that this level of licence promises for at least the next 9 years allows the club to plan medium to long term in both its on and off field activities. Far from Rule being the wrong man for the job this proves he was infact a good choice as he has delivered to Hull FC what all other clubs aspire to be. The fact that he is young, relatively inexperienced, and therefore probably commands a lower salary then a 'star' name would should be seen as a master stroke by the club and not 'something else' they've got wrong.

Bingo!

Given that much of the assessment of the licence application related to the period before rule took over (gates, facilities, league position, stronger finances etc.) he can hardly take all of the plaudits can he?


He has also overseen a decline in playing standards, coaching, serious administrative errors, poor player retention and recruitment alongside spats with the local media. If you feel that is good performance then god help us when things go wrong.

We can only speculate where we'd be now if we'd paid top dollar for a "stronger" candidate, but much like paying top dollar for a decent coach (remind me who decided to appoint the inexperienced agar), you give yourselves more chance of success.

And the award for over-reaction of the night goes to....

Naah

I'd save all my dosh and look on here and gain the benefit (FOC of course), of all the fooking experts, who have become so successfull in life that all they have to do, is fill their time by posting stupid messages on a web forum.

The club exists and is ran successfully for one reason only.

Us the fans.

End of story.

I will never throw, well we have a grade a license at anyone. For example, lets say throw it at a rovers fan. Response "we beat you on your own muck" "we are better than you"

Holds feck all meaning to me.
Shove this bollax where the sun don't shine if we dont have a successfull team WHICH IS WHY WE PAY THESE CLOWNS!

God, the grad a license is fantastic, as is everything financially. We are well run and fair play to it. But you know what, It for me comes as a gloating secondary factor. We have that AS WELL AS a successful team What those players do when I go and watch is all I really care about. I want us to win, but if we are crap, as long as we show effort and give a for my money, I am a happy boy.

What a lot of you chaps on here need to realise is that we finance the vast majority of this. We are actually in control as without us nothing acutally exists.

That's a very broad statement, unless of course you also work for Sky and some of our sponsors!!

Do we? Not sure that's the case TBH.

Fans contribution is through pass sales, matchday tickets, and merchandising.

Other income streams are the Sky money, sponsorship, and corporate sales.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown on these items (not sure they're in the abbreviated accounts that get published) because I reckon the split might surprise a few.

To be honest I had a few beers at pool last night when I wrote that.
The point I was trying to make is that the fans are tantamount to the clubs overall success

Your post is spot on.
As with any sporting club, you take away the fans and they have nothing, people can bang on about sponsorship and Sky money, but why do you think sponsons whant to be involved in the first place? I'll answer my own question, to sell their produce to you, the fans, and If we the fans were not subscribing to Sky, do you think for one minute they wouldn't drop RL like a hot potato, Why do you think one of the criteria for the licences is 10,000+ fans, that wasn't done on a whim, I suspect that Sky had a say in that. The underlying truth behind all of this is that without the fans there is no professional game,only the amateur game.

There's no doubt that no club can exist without the fans, no matter how good the alternative income streams might be. There's also no doubt that success on the pitch is not only important for the fans, but also for many of those other income streams as well.

Something that perhaps has been forgotten at least temporarily by the management of the club.