Yeah,gallows humour is something we're good at....

it'll get darker as the weeks go by.....

We can not allow civilian rule. Why don't we move backs to forwards and vice versa? Oh, hang on....

I don't even buy in to the need for a drop in attendances. Peter Sharp went without any of that. Agar is on borrowed time I think purely down to the level of performance particularly this season but also the end of last.

The BOD hadn't made anything like the same investment in Sharp as they have in Agar. Still - hope you're right.

But not a financial one if we got him on the cheap?
What is cheap for a SL coach? What's the range bottom to top of the current coaches? Anyone any idea? I can't imagine that , in the scheme of things , you're talking about life changing amounts of money? Would the extra over 3 years be more or less than we just spent on Westerman?

Always a good quote(ish) from Pete Smurfwaite(spell) "you could put 13 black and white chairs on the pitch, the Hull fans are so passionate, they'd support them"

I think the same. I was as against the board appointing Agar as anyone but I've never really bought the idea that it's because he's cheap pretty much because of the reasons you outline.

I don't think the board's record on coaching appointments is quite as bad as some say. Bomber fell into our laps but it was a pretty successful regime (although we didn't win anything), on the back of that it wasn't unreasonable to try for a continuation through appointing his assistant (who was already a CC winner). Kear didn't really work out, but he got us a Challenge Cup and certainly wasn't an unmitigated disaster. Next they get Sharp who gets us to the GF and top 4 the year after before it ended badly.

I prefer to believe that the reason for Agar's seemingly never-ending reign of misery is down to an unfortunate convergence between the board making the policy decision that whoever replaced Sharp would get vastly improved working conditions, far more time than any of his predecessors and be backed to the hilt... and Richard Agar being able to convince them that he was the man for that job.

The type of appointment they make as Agar's successor will make clear whether that's the right way to see it or not.

Interesting that it was reported that Ivan Henjak was paid off with three month's salary. Maybe Agar's contract has a termination notice period ? Probably not.

Is this the new Rumours style thread and when we get to 1000, we close it and start a new one?

If we/Hull end Agars contract because he isn't doing his job properly shown by the dire performances (fairly clear cut IMO) how is it that we have to pay him off?
Breach of contract terms I'd bleedin' well say, surely he must have had more warnings about HIS performance than Tansey did so why is he still here? Dismissal with no pay off surely the right & proper thing to do

Our defence would be better too.