So to be a true hull fan you have to give the club money for no return?
Why should you expect board members to be well out pocket and put the club at risk by not fulfilling their loan payments?
The profits you're talking about are paltry (£165k last year).

As to Ashleys finances, a £20M loss is nothing to this guy as he lost a £1/3Billion on one lot of shares last year alone. The £20M loss can be offset against any profit his businesses make (and against those in the future) this hardly applies to the board at Hull FC and to be honest I think there aren't any Hull FC fans able or willing to put a few million into the club

So to be a true hull fan you have to give the club money for no return?
Why should you expect board members to be well out pocket and put the club at risk by not fulfilling their loan payments?
The profits you're talking about are paltry (£165k last year).

to be honest I think there aren't any Hull FC fans able or willing to put a few million into the club'"

Obviously, but what's the point in that question as there is no relegation.

Either way I still feel we need a complete change in our coaching setup but it's not going to happen.

There are NO local businessmen prepared or maybe able to put their ££ in.
So we have what we have - a board focused on profit and getting their loans back with juicy interest - fair do BUT don't complain if you don't like the fact they pay coaches peanuts etc.
I complain because I would love a Hull board of local men with enough £ to pay a Tim Sheens £300,000 pa to coach Hull FC'"

I have heard that there is a group that are interested and have tried to buy the club previously before being stiffed on the deal.

Does one of them groups include a certain agent thats owns a few of our players?

Not the one I know of as far as I know.

A good coach MIGHT be able to transform the on-the-field fortunes of the club for a short time. But for genuine positive change to occur and - more importantly - PREVAIL you need things right upstairs. If you have muppets at the top even Wayne Bennett would struggle past a second year.

Saints are extremely fortunate in having McManus. He's not in the David Whelan wealth bracket, but he has a few bob. Enough to clear the mountain of bad debts and bad faith left behind by the previous administration, which threatened to send Saints the same way as Widnes, Halifax and the rest. McManus has got the club off life-support, single-handedly driven the development of the new stadium through (ready some time in 2011 and owned by the club) and has financed the acquisition of world class talent (Gidley, Lyon, Cayless, Soliola etc.) without running up mind-boggling debt (as was the case with Newlove, Sculthorpe etc.).

But where McManus has REALLY delivered is in creating a comprehensive and cohesive strategy for Success at all levels. From the kit man through to the chairman - everyone understands his role within the machine and what the 'Big Picture' really is. No where is this more important than in the field of junior development. For years St. Helens was a laughing stock. Before Graham we hadn't produced a single top class prop in my living memory (excluding Andy Platt, who didn't come through the ranks as such). Now we have several excellent prospects following Graham (Clough may gravitate toward prop but at this moment he is an excellent young second row). In other positions we're practically awash with talent - Lomax, Ashurst, Eastmond, Wheeler, Ellis etc.

McManus hired the best people to develop the kids (special mention to Mike Rush, who has attracted interest from the RFL to become a national performance manager) and let them get on with it - provided they worked within the framework he developed to take the club forward.

Of course, none of the above guarantees success. Only a fool thinks his club will be at the top forever. But it DOES mean the club should - barring serious ill fortune (such as McManus keeling over dead and a lunatic like Maurice "Spend...Spend...Spend...and the banks be damned!" Lindsay taking over to run the club into the ground) - remain at the very least COMPETITIVE. And that's good enough even for the most fickle fans.

And we have james rule

If by "being stiffed on the deal" you mean "being unable or unwilling to pay the asking price" then yes. Or at least there was.

Actually we have no direct analogue for the role than McManus plays at Saints. Which is the main problem rather than the personalities involved.

mcmanus is their chief exec isn't he? Is he also the club's owner?

Problem with our club is that we have an inexperienced chief exec who has no authority to do anything anyway.

People point to the club going down the pan since cooke left. My take on it is that it was at that time that rule took over and this is the fundamental problem. plummer may not have been a great media person and he fooked up big style over cooke, however the club seemed to operate much better under his guidance

No I mean being stiffed as in both parties agree on the price, then after the paperwork is drawn up the sellers decide to ask for more.