Okay then, what coach can we bring in who would guarantee a top 4 place?

I'm not the one making claims about cash cows.

Dunno, not my job to find one but if agar nearly managed it then there must be dozens around who could

I know, but without the full financial details then he is as likely to be right in his assumption as you are in yours. I think being chairman is kath's full time job isn't it? If it is I expect she's on a salary for the role

Quote: Jake the Peg "I know, but without the full financial details then he is as likely to be right in his assumption as you are in yours. I think being chairman is kath's full time job isn't it? If it is I expect she's on a salary for the role'" www.hullfc.com/hullfc/contents/?page_id=60 Just says Director on here.

Quote: Jake the Peg "I know, but without the full financial details then he is as likely to be right in his assumption as you are in yours. I think being chairman is kath's full time job isn't it? If it is I expect she's on a salary for the role'" www.hullfc.com/hullfc/contents/?page_id=60 Just says Director on here.

We've had this discussion before, and although it suits the agenda of some to claim that the board have a lifestyle to rival the Sultan of Brunei off the back of FC passholders, the maths doesn't work. We spend the cap and reportedly at least half a million to the SMC. How do we still manage to turn in a profit if the directors are syphoning off exorbitant salaries? Other clubs (Leeds apart) don't. Rule, Sutton and Flatman do full time jobs, so why shouldn't they be remunerated appropriately?

Actually the abbreviated accounts don't support his assumption at all. And I wasn't making any assumptions.

Millward, maybe not first off but in the long run we would be ok IMO.

It's all my mother's fault!!

I remember the discussion. You came up with a stack of fictitious amounts which supposedly backed up your claims that the directors aren't taking much out. I still believe that a business with a turnover of circa £5m, where the 3 biggest costs (players, stadium and stock for the shop) are less than £3m (probably substantially less) must either be making a decent profit or have other expense we don't know about.

The abbreviated accounts don't disprove his assumption either

Like Wigan, you mean, whose directors emoluments are zero, whose stadium rental is <£200k and who make a loss on bigger gates than we get? Righto.

Like wigan who were run as a sideline to whelan's beloved wigan athletic and who are now returning to profit because they are being run properly I mean

Yes, they are returning to profit. They've won the league and we haven't. They pay the directors nothing and we'll be paying Rule, Sutton and Flatman. They pay only £187k for stadium rental, our deal is supposed to be at least half a million. In that context they should be making at least half a million a year more than we do.

Should they? What is their income compared to ours? How do you know they pay their directors nothing?

I'm guessing that with the salary cap, that if every club had the same level of income as us then they'd pretty much all be making a profit other than possibly leeds who have a completely different business model to everyone else