I suppose you've got evidence to back this up?

Presumably things on the playing side have got worse since kath left. According to some on here, neither rule or agar have anything to do with overall management of the playing side and I'm sure neither tony sutton or john flatman do and pearson will be busy with city

The evidence has been clear to see for the last 3 1/2 years if you want to open your eyes a little

Its not a question of opening your eyes.

Its about seeing what is in front of you rather than what you want to see.

Its about not drawing conclusions which are unsupported by evidence.

I don't claim to be right, but I haven't seen any evidence that you are either.

The evidence is that in pretty much every business on the planet that the CEO is responsible and reportable for every aspect of the business. If you, or anyone else, has evidence that it's not the case at Hull then please feel free to share it with us, otherwise we'll have to assume that rule has had responsibility for the playing side of the club

Correct in the sense that the CEO reports to the BOD and implements their decisions and carries out their instructions.

In many businesses the CEO/MD makes the big decisions. That was not the case at Hull FC during the previous regime.

Thanks for clearing that up. Maybe you can just let me have some evidence that was the case so I can just be certain.

Also, are you saying that our CEO isn't/wasn't on the BOD? Or maybe you're just mixing up the board with the shareholders

I can't give you any evidence; its my honest belief and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary its just as valid as your equally honest belief.

Although Rule did join the board (last year?) at the end of the day he was still an employee and not an owner like the other directors.

We'll have to agree to differ although I find it hard to believe the guy responsible for the day to day running of the club has no responsibility for or say in what happens in the most important aspect of the club. rule has been on the BOD for years. He was marketing director before he became CEO I believe

Just wrong,

the CEO is responsible in the sense that if something goes wrong its his fault,

But a good CEO is a strategist, who trusts his staff to deliver on that strategy,

Its only 'his fault' with respect to the buck stopping with him, its not his actions that have led to the demise of our club, far from it,

Do you expect him to pop on a jersey and get on the field?

It's the CEO's 'fault' if his judgement is so bad that he puts his trust in halfwits like Rich Agar to deliver on his strategy.

OK we'll agree to differ.

Believe it or not I do actually respect your views.

I'm fairly sure Rule only became a Director recently. He was Marketing Director before becoming CEO, but was not actually a Director.

Maybe someone who's interested enough can check with Companies House and find out.

Just wrong

The CEO has responsibility and therefore needs to ensure that things are happening. His lack of action has led us to where we are