A boring clot AND a mind reader; it gets better.

What is the point of this thread??

For god sake let it go. To say the 'majority' of Hull fans wanted rid of Agar some are spending a lot of time obsessing over him.

Defeat excuses are not exclusive to Agar. I am sure Mr Gentle will come prepared with is own set of antipodean excuses, such as

'We didn't perform', 'A few decisions went against us' or 'The other team got the rub of the green' to name but a few.

For the next 12 months Gentle will get a free ride, because I can guarantee you now that if next season turns out similar to this at the KC, it will be Agar's fault.

I hope for Peter Gentle's sake he is aware he must win the league leaders shield, Challenge Cup and Super League trophy by the end of 2013 or he will be seen as a failure by some of fans at such a '[sizemassive[/size' club.

Actually a lot of Hull fans would give all that up if we did the double over Rovers.

As a neutral I read with interest the big thread about Agar's appointment and I understand the need for supporters to rally around a new appointment which appears to be the majority opinion. However, I am concerned for you guys next year because Agar is a less than inspiring coaching option. His track record coaching at this level is poor.

Despite having a good foundation (good support, good squad, board who backed him, better academy pool) he's done nothing during his tenure at Hull to suggest he can deliver and now he's stepping to a team where he's likely to face more restrictions on his ability to compete e.g. level of attractiveness to new recruits.

It's okay saying he may have been the best option but does anybody seriously believe that? Surely there must be up and coming coaches who were interested? There must have been a few coaches from the divisions below who fancied it or an eager Aussie? I'd have been more interested in taking a risk on somebody like that than a guy who appears to have already proven that he's not up to making a dent at this level. You can say that Aussies are always a short-term appointment but that in itself is a restricted viewpoint because some Aussie coaches can do more in two or three seasons than others do in five. Only one team has consistently finished in the top four over the past sixteen years (Saints) and all their coaching appointments have been Australian (only two other clubs have never had a British coach, Catalans and Rovers, who have made the play offs relatively regularly too). They've done pretty well off the back of 'short-term' appointments.

The magic of some of your previous appointments was that they managed to get more out of the players than was expected and does anybody really believe Agar is able to do that? His board backed him by going for the likes of Fitzgibbon, O'Meley and Berrigan yet he couldn't even elevate his team back into the top six. You can say he had injuries but Hull is a team which should team be performing better.

In an appointment where there was a risk but more potential upside I'd be more open, accepting and flexible with regards to perfomance as this person finds their way. Unfortunately this appointment does look like an old boys one and because of that I'm not buying this "he was the best available". There must have been better or more interesting candidates out there and rlI question the club's recruitment processrl.

In a situation where an appointment has been made which is entirely at odds with what you believe I can understand the wish to not renew a season ticket and I think this is further compounded by the misleading press release made by the club. It's one thing getting an appointment date wrong but the release paints a picture of a guy who was at the helm of a Super League powerhouse when he wasn't. What does that say about the club's management? Either somebody didn't check their facts (possible) or it was a deliberate and conscious distortion made to present Agar in a better light to appease any unrest. If it's the latter I would find that entirely unacceptable. Did the club do a response to this or has it not been questioned officially? Whatever the case the statement reveals something that would undermine my confidence in their ability run my club. Even with Agar's appointment I'd be less than happy but then to have the club suggest he has presided over a golden period of RL and development, well that would have me questioning the integrity of those in charge at my club and of the appointment itself i.e. if you're appointing mates it may compromise your ability to make the difficult decisions in the future (of course it may not also if you are of strong character and have integrity but picking a mate does not suggest integrity).

In certain circumstances a club's management can buy itself more time with supporters because of issues that need addressing or previous track record and I would describe myself as being one of the more patient RL supporters. However, when you begin to question the trust you have afforded the club because it does not feel like you are being respected by them as a supporter of the club, you are right to ask more challenging questions.

Anyone else stop reading after that?

Isn't Hull one of the better academy pools in the competition?

Do pigs fly?

Too many words - I got bored.

No better than ours - hence them raiding the Wakefield district for many players!
If you don't know what you're talking about, just stick to reading the comments of those that do!

How do you get from me talking about his time at Hull (with the advantages he had) to Wakefield's academy? I don't recall mentioning Wakefield's academy in the post.

Can I ask out of interest why you are bothered?

Posh trolling - just dressing up normal trolling with a hint of fake reasonableness.

I dont think he's trolling, from his other posts on other forums he seems genuine.
He's just interested, makes it difficult to spot with all the other trolling going on!