I say is it for real or BS?

Surely this makes no difference with a salary cap? We're assured we spend to it, after all.

And Mrs B, you were great.

I've been fed up for 2 years.

No way in hell are the board sacking Agar after one game, IF he goes it will be mid-season at the earliest hence my statement. Instead of trying to get one up how about reading what is actually written?

I haven't tried to get one up. The way it read was that you wanted rid now, but don't like to lose a coach mid season. I do apologise if i've read it wrong.

Although, you can't seriously believe that the board hire Agar because he's less trouble?

I've wanted rid for quite a while. Apology accepted.

I dont think they hired him based on that but I have my suspicions that he has been given far more benefit of the doubt than recent coaches partly due to the fact he is a yes man who isn't particularly demanding of the board. Just my impression and I may well be wrong.

Is he a yes man though, you don't get the board to suddenly spend £150k on a player if he does as he's told?

Unless it was the boards idea? Are they recouping that money by not spending the salary cap aswell?

Again no evidence of this, its just a thought.

so when we shell money out for a player its because the board want him? No credit for agar and scouts doing the work, then asking the board for the money? So when hull win its the players when we lose its agar.... your one of them?

One of what? I simply gave a scenario in which Agar could be a yes man and the club still pay a fee for a player. I even stated I had no evidence of this being the case. How about you get over yourself.

why would it be the boards idea to shell out for a player the coach hasnt asked for..... unless your hudge the grudge