Fans should always remember the 17th chapter of the book of jobeblessed is he who doth not expect - for he shall not be disappointed" [/i

True. But that makes an assumption that said business model is ineffective to the point of being unable to provide the above. I'm not sure that's the case. Whilst Warrington, Huddersfield and Wigan may have a sugar daddy in situ, only one of those have actually become champions. What is clear is that how we have sliced our salary cap cake has been crumbly at best in recent years. And that's being polite.

Splashing the cash may have had validity at Warrington and to a degree Huddersfield, but the youth production models at Leeds, Saints and even Wigan have greater context and application in modern sport. Hull FC have a plethora of overseas players and ones gleaned for other clubs, it's not done them a right lot of good.

The caveat being a business structure with a balance of salary cap spend in sync with the bottom line isn't going to be too far away. How that translates into perceived success depends on how astute our player recruitment and retention is. It couldn't be much worse that recent years.

Rowland Agar unfortunately is not a suitable person these days in my book,

I thought Coulby was in Marketing? according to some Company House details re the Bulls

On what basis do you suggest Roland Agar is unsuitable?

Why would anyone who does not support the club give up time/effort and money? The people who have taken over, just like the last board do it for the club and not to make money. Even a Bulls post administration would not be wortha great deal to anyone!!

Some of the criticism of the new BOD and Brian Noble is appaling.

Lets support the new guys from a perspective that they care and want the club to be successful.

Unfortunately the "guys" are not new and are the same ones that left the Club in a financial mess in 2006

They have, if you can keep your players. IMHO and despite the mauling McNamara and Potter (until recently) received, we have brought through and are bringing through a crop of youngsters to rival anybody. All other things being equal, we could have had, and given resources still could have, the makings of a bright future.



But we already know how to achieve success, we achieved success to rival anybody. The problem we had, and the problem Wigan et al will eventually face, is that your excellent squad will sooner or later fall into decline and you will fall from grace, and then you need to find a way to keep the pot boiling until your rebuilt squad can compete at the top again.

However you are vulnerable both to predators (cf Sam Burgess [iet al[/i), young player assessment / management mistakes (cf Ryan Atkins, Chris Bridge [iet al[/i) and experienced player mistakes (cf Menzies, Pryce, Peacock [iet al[/i).

It is extremely hard to get near the top, and to be at the top or thereabouts, over a consistent period, is the hardest thing of all, but you can fall from grace badly in a minute, and we are the proof of that.

Oh, and it always helps if you don't discharge one barrel of your shotgun into each of your own feet.

Well that's nice and positiv.

You also haven't explained your assertion that Roland Agar isn't suitable to be on the board.

Grow up. 6 months is a long time in business never mind 6 years.

Surely they could only deem him to be "not a fit and proper person" on the basis of something in the public domain? Something for which his culpability has been independently established as fact. They would have to have an objective reason that could be applied to all SL owners.

His potential conflict of interest as an agent might be a factor but that's a different issue.

Given its the RFL, and the mysterious ways in which they work (or don't work...) who knows? Especially given we none of us know what really happened behind the scenes over Harrisgate. But, as I said, I'd not heard this before until several different people started referring to it, so there is no evidence to suggest it is anything more than hearsay/gossip/usual internet nonsense anyway. Certainly, I'm not aware of anything specific that could justify such a sanction, and I struggle to see how such a charge could justifiably be levelled at a practising lawyer anyway.

Forgive me butting in without reading the recent few pages, but with what authority has CC ordered the 'independent' (yeah right) review - presumably as controlling shareholder/s? If he was judged 'not a fit & proper person' what is to stop him pulling the strings, as he is now, without having his name on the door?

In response to an email Andrew Bennett said something along the lines that he did not think that CC would be judged a fit and proper person by the RFL. The person put it up on facebook(?)
and if I recall Bulls4Champ posted it on here. Stand to be corrected on any/all of this.

That's perfectly correct but absolutely everyone is going to come with some baggage and ultimately as fans we have no control over anything. For what it's worth, I think they are intelligent people who are capable of learning from past mistakes, in any case they are running the show now and my default position is that they will generally get my support, unless they show themselves to be unworthy of it. Not that I think there is anything intrinsically wrong in pointing out uncomfortable things from the past, and I for one aren't going to brush it out of memory - BUT, I think, for the good of the club, we maybe ought to let the past stay in the past and concentrate on what is to come?

If Bennett said that, I'm astounded tbh. Unless there is something petty big that we are not aware of, I really can't see what grounds there could be for making such a statement? I really can't believe its anything more than internet prattle.