Wouldn't surprise me mate . I can't remember if they got a fee for Hock also .

Is this Hudgell the wise sage the OP refers to any relation to the one whose club regularly loses approaching half a million a year and and is around minus £3 million on the balance sheet?

While neglecting his academy?

Bingo

Fair play to hudge he as done a cracking job on & off the pitch at KR, there running at a loss each year but it has not stopped him setting out what he said he was going to do by putting them in the top league & developing the ground & youth system hes changed the coach & players for the better whilst upsetting some fans along the way but hes made these changes with the clubs best interests at hart, & you cant have nothing but admiration for him we would'nt have the biggest/best only real derby in SL without what he as done. As for salford who knows what they could turn out to be he could stick around for years the doc he might turn them into the chelsea of SL i dont believe he did not know he has to spend within the salary cap before purchasing the club.

I'm not questioning the effort Hudgell has put in for the dobbins but the OP was suggesting he should be running the RL! There is a world of difference from putting personal effort (and cash) into one club and building a successful and sustainable league structures and competitions. How would his practices of operating at a loss, exploiting overseas player rules and petty point scoring work over a national competition?

That's a fair summary. Hudgell has done great work at Rovers driven by his love of the club and therefore his own self-satisfaction. Such all-consuming self-interest however is the poorest qualification for running a sport, which he and AP allude to in slating the undue influence of the Hetheringtons at Red Hall. The problem in RL is that there's no one with the authority, gravitas and clear thinking to shape a compelling vision and secure club engagement behind it, partly because the a RFL has fudged so many issues and fecked things up commercially that it's stock/credibility with most club owners is close to zero.

KR have run at a Loss as most new companies do and that's what they've been since entering SL speculate to accumulate is the saying as for running the league who knows he could be capable he runs his law firms up & down the country pretty successful the fact of the matter for me is the RFL do ok but year on year need to improve the structures media & marketing let our game down look at our sponsors there not all nationwide companies Like football & union have & I know this view is not everyone's but why do they try & pump money into the areas that don't care about our game rather then upping salary caps at up & running clubs to boost there youth systems?

Well said that was exactly the point I am trying to get across, this guy has stood up and admitted that his club run at a loss along with every other rl club fc included. Maybe the chairman of all the rl clubs form a committee and bring to task those at red hall who can't even get a sponsor for our game and if they don't want to listen after that breakaway just like what happened to the old arl and form a new rugby league format.

Whilst not denying NH is a very passionate fan/owner of Rovers I just can't understand the sudden love-in with the man from our supporters. Over the last few years he has taken many opportunities to make a number of digs at FC, even when the topic was seemingly nothing to do with us. To suggest he should run the RFL is ridiculous - his club has been moderately successful at best (established in SL, but no silverware), makes regular losses and as mentioned has not invested in Youth, but sought a number of mediocre(and one or two good) Australians instead. He was right to stand up to Hetherington and co, but lets not get carried away just yet!

Does this 'neglect' represent a failure of self-interest or to the RL family?



The first carries its own inherent punishment. The second, well, as you once said, it is dog eat dog.





And the RFL themselves acknowledge there are major trust issues. Arising from not having a strong framework in place and making stuff up as they go along, too often. IMO.

For me the point isn't so much what the system is, number of teams, P&R or franchising, quotas, salary cap and what have you. So long as it is clear, unambiguous and the same for everybody. If the rules are fair and clear, then clubs can plan accordingly and if some mess it up (as will always happen) then they can live with the consequences. It shouldn't contaminate the wider sport. No club should be considered too big or strategically-important to fail - unless we were to run the entire sport as a centrally-planned collective. To allow clubs, independent of central control, and the sport as a whole to succeed, we have to accept failures.









I don't think he should, for the reasons Barham Red mentioned. But the measures of success would be completely different, so someone [ulike[/u him would likely bring a different approach to the task. Like most benefactor-chairmen, he's been successful in his business life outside RL. Many RL chairmen have experience of navigating and indeed exploiting our ridiculously over-complicated quota and cap regulations, so might well be able to turn gamekeeper effectively. As for the petty points scoring - I agree he's not always the most diplomatic. But complaining a thousand times about his clear, if only implicit, criticism of your previous board announcing a signing in May, four and a half years ago, doesn't mean he said it a thousand times. And 'lucky-gate', while, if it was point scoring, I'd have advised a more nuanced approach, it did follow on from AP's saying there'll be one academy in Hull, run by Hull FC. Any others, I've missed?

Overall, an 'outsider' given a strong mandate to make a plan and push it through would be the best option for the sport, IMO.

Very well put.





This agreeing business is all a bit weird, innit?