IN AN ideal world, the focus of yesterday's sport section would have been Basingstoke Town's FA Cup tie against Harrow Borough.

Unfortunately, that was bumped from the back page by a bad news story as it emerged that seven members of Basingstoke RFC had been charged by the RFU over the incident that saw the club field an ineligible player under a false name last month.

The full story can be found by clicking here, but when you consider that the chairman, head coach and captain are among those in the firing line, it becomes clear that this is a very serious issue.

The RFU have decided that all seven should face the same charge, but it's pretty clear that they are not all equally culpable, and one or more may not be culpable at all. For instance, only one person fills in and signs the official match card - the document that the club admit was falsified.

You can only assume that if the RFU find anyone culpable when they have their hearing, they will make it clear where they believe the degree of responsibility lies.

In the club's defence, it's pretty clear to me that nobody travelled to Guildford on that fateful Saturday with the intention of cheating.

Chris Guyatt, the player in question, is a Basingstoke lad who has come through the ranks. He has since been registered and played several games, so it's not like the club were bringing in a superstar player for a single game underneath the radar.

That said, having realised that he wasn't registered on the day, 'Stoke's decision makers had a number of options.

The simplest would have been to play the game with only two replacements, but there were other registered players available.

Head coach Will Croker was one, while there were a host of others about to play a second string game on an adjoining pitch.

Any of these options would have been perfectly acceptable, but instead the decision was taken to have Guyatt play the game under the name of a player who was not present on the day.

Looking back, this was a terrible idea, and in my opinion, somebody should have been able to see it as such at the time. For whatever reason, nobody did, the game was played, Basingstoke lost 37-31 and the consequences have ensued.

'Stoke bosses came forward voluntarily and admitted the club's blunder in the days following the match, so the RFU may decide to be lenient when the hearing comes around - but that's far from assured.

Either way, big questions still need to be asked if guilt is apportioned by the governing body. One person, first team manager Mark Randell, has already resigned over his part in the whole affair. Should others follow if they are found to be culpable?

I don't know enough of the facts to answer that at the moment, but it's hard to see how anybody found culpable by the RFU will not have to consider if their position is tenable. It may be more complicated than it seems, but that's the way it looks from the outside.

One thing is certain - it's a situation that is clearly having an adverse impact inside the club.

I've had an idea that there are some pretty serious divisions bubbling under the surface for a couple of weeks, but the problems seem to be coming to a head. There seems to be a very real split between some members of the board and the playing section.

Even after the fallout from the RFU hearing is dealt with, there will still be a motion of 'no confidence' in the board hanging over the club.

Things may get worse before they start to get better. It is a certainly a sad situation.