If I was the board and Paul Cooke wanted him to return to his beloved Hull KR I'd let him go. I wouldn't want a player to play for me if he didn't want to. As if the first home game at the KC annoyed you a bit, get a grip. The cup cock up was bad but other clubs have made cock ups regarding player registrations etc. We still got to the final didn't we??? Yeah the prices are shocking but the SMC take a huge chunk of that. If we had our own stadium them maybe things might be a bit different. Was Kear on more then Sharp??

So basically your saying the board are tight by not spending much on a coach yet THE BOARD fork out money for transfers to try and improve the club. Its nothing to do with figures and money issues why we don't pay a lot for a coach. I think they genuinely wanted Agar to be a success because he is British, local and young IMO.

What do people want? All our previous boards have done is rack up debt? All boards/people make mistakes, but does ours really warrant their removal? Do people genuinely believe there are people out there that would come to our club and do a better job? I think we should be grateful we have a club to support and one with a future, thanks to the people who are currently running the club. One thing at at time, let's concentrate on Agar's departure.

[iA perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem[/i. Albert Einstein

Exactly! We make annual profits, we have a talented youth system coming through and we also have a great squad on paper. I know "on paper" means nothing but if the board pulled their finger out and got rid of Agar then maybe we could challenge for top 4 finish and play decent rugby.

Transer fees in the last 3 years are profits from the club,

Dont forget we paid 2 knacking fees for golden boy Tansey!

Macca is young british and local, but he'd cost more than Agar, and he wouldnt be a yes man (not saying i want him BTW)

We as a Club have income at anywhere between £4.5 and £5 mill per year.

If you believe them £1.6mill goes on players wages, I'd like to see where the rest goes! Please dont waste your time saying stadium costs, stock costs admin staff etc.

£3+ mill is a lot though.......

We ALL hoped he would be a success, its good that the club where willing to give a young British coach a chance, but it aint worked, he hasnt been a success, he has failed miserably and the board should have the guts to admit their mistake and get rid,

I'm fairly happy in the main with the job the board do but I hope that they do the right thing as far as the Head coach is concerned and replace Agar with the right man rather than with a cheap option.

I can't really complain about the way the rest of the club is run.

Totally agree

Imo the board lack ambition,if they wanted success they would of got Agar out a long time ago and not even renewed his contract.They would of got someone in with a winning mentality.The board have done great off field but that won't last long the way things are going with the way the team is coached.Fans are really getting fed up with whole situation now and if the board don't act fast and rectify the problem then all the good work they have done will be lost.

Where did you get 4.5m to 5m from? Just wondered and I will try and respond

Everyone goes on about a "YES MAN". Where did you get evidence that suggests the board dictate everything??? And if they did do you think Agar would still be there. If I was coach and they wanted me in charge but told me to do everything I would tell them to get stuffed and walk out instead of being a "YES MAN" winning less then 50% of games. I wouldn't want to look stupid and dent reputation.

I'm guessing most would put up with it for 80 grand a year

Yes Mr Bastle !no Mr Bastle ! I know nothing !

There's basically no one with any rugby league background in the boardroom.

Other than kath, none of the other owners were even RL fans before they bought in to gateshead/Hull. rule is an ex RU player with a marketing background. sutton and flatman aren't rugby people and have no clout anyway. Which leaves kath. I know she has been around teh game for a number of years and might have some knowledge, but she sure as hell doesn't know how to turn off field success into on field success

Not often I agree with you but that was my thought on it. They will spend money on transfers which these days is non existant but wont pay out for a decent coach. Westerman may become a club legend but £150,000 plus Westermans wages would have surely tempted a top coach from any country. One man doesnt make a team but a top coach does.

james rule said kath has interest in the day to day running of the club and that any trouble or wrong doing the buck stops at him, the running of the club has been good but i would rather be challenging for silverware then be getting be getting grade a licenses or making thousands of pounds every year, the ambition has seemed to have gone.

I am not a member of the board and I claim no inside knowledge of the club finances but I do understand accounts and would like to think I have some knowledge of running a business.
Hull FC or at least the company behind the team are a small company as defined by UK legislation. This means that the accounts do not show profit (although admitedly its not too difficult to work out), turnover, directors remuneration, coaches wages or any other of the numbers being regularly banded about by those in the know.
In addition to this, as was pointed out by Mrs B, last time I looked, which admittedly was a couple of years ago, the company had negative reserves so was not able to pay any dividends.
Anyone throwing numbers about is either making them up, basing their comments on hearsay and rumour or (unlikely in my opinion) received the information in privaliged circumstances and should therefore keep their mouths shut.
By all means criticise the board for offering RA an extended contract or for not removing him now or even earlier, thats a matter of fact and opinion but how anyone knows that he was cheaper than Peter Sharp or John Kear I'd be interested to know.

In answer to the OP in my opinion people criticise the board for 1 or more of 3 reasons

1 The treatment of RA and perceived lack of ambition (fair enough)

2 Because its easy to and makes people feel part of the gang (or cuddle crew if you prefer)

3 Because they perceive the board members to be wealthy (rightly or otherwise I've no idea) and it makes people feel good to do a bit of "fat cat" bashing - ie pure jealousy.

For what its worth my opinion is that on the whole the board are doing a good job except that I do believe its time for a new coach

The board of any company is ultimately responsible for all aspects of it's operations. In this respect our board have done a great job in many areas - finance, marketing, sales to name a few. Unfortunately the product the company produces is poor and this aspect is what most customers (fans) care about.

The main difference with a sports club is that the customers have a much closer connection to the product than most others and so feel a much higher steakholding in the company. The board are responsible to all steakholders, so the fans are not only hurt and disappointed by the poor product they pay for as customers but also feel let down by the board as steakholders in the company - slating therefore ensues!

Good post. The context as well is the profitability of other SL clubs:

Leeds 720,871
Warrington 159,514
Hull FC 77,141
Castleford 26,679
Salford -19,651
Wigan -40,715
Bradford -72,209
Wakefield -202,379
Rovers -297,828
Huddersfield -823,739
St Helens -861,810
Harlequins -1,936,804

Leeds apart, then, it's fair to say that SL clubs struggle to break even unless they get a cup win like Warrington. In all cases pretty much apart from ours there is a note in the accounts stating that a going concern basis for accounts preparation is only appropriate if the support of the directors continues, so directors are putting money into the clubs as opposed to taking it out. To me, it seems highly unlikely that FC's directors are all taking a salary of £100k each and yet FC can still return a profit - just doesn't stack up IMO.

When people refer to the club as a cash cow, what they actually mean is that the fans inputs mean the directors don't have to put their own money in, and that is a good thing, having a self-financing business model. However, what we are seeing now is a big gap in income for the club. If the directors are not minded to make up the shortfall, it's not hard to see that the obvious thing to do is cut the wage bill, and the biggest wage bill at the club is the players.

iirc,Leeds sold land and property to gain a profit last time?

No, that was the year before. Their profit in 2009 including the profit on sale of fixed assets was £3.6m. Their operating profit excluding this exceptional item was £721k.

now i know quins have david hughes who basically bank rolls them and pays all debts but for how long can they go on for what if 1 day he decides enoughs enoughs and leaves

Most clubs apart from ours have directors propping up unsustainable business models.

yeh they do but quins are losing near enough 2 million a season for a super league side to lose that much money has to be a major major concern and i know other directors pay little debts ect of but were talking massive money with quins