Personally I am not for a change. Sometimes steady progress builds a long term sustainable position rather than the short term glory that throwing cash at it does. Repaying the directors loans will have given them a cash income over the past few years (and is more tax efficient than drawing a salary or dividend) and the capital value of their shares will have risen on the back of an improved net worth. Our investment in youth and quality british players is a more sustainable investment than short term imports.

Would ownership of the club allow the rugby lease to be varied to our detriment? If Allams owned both clubs and the ground then they would hold all the cards - would it be cheaper to buy the club and do this rather than try and buy out the lease?

If it aint broken, dont fix it - and for me it isnt broken (save for the odd cup or two!).

I have no issues with the board, and believe they have done a fantastic job turning our club around.

What the Allams have promised city is just what football needs, I'm not sure if it's just a pipedream though, I hate city but if the Allams are genuine they seem like the best kind of owners around at the moment, talk of 10 quid tickets, share issues, sustainability etc should be music to every football supporters ears, especially when you see scum like the Glazers in charge of Manchester United or the reckless spending of some of the clubs it's refreshing, I'm not sure if they are just naive though.

Rugby league and Hull FC especially are in less need of this, the game is closer to the fans as it is and we live by our own means, has people have said if it ain't broke don't fix it, but the Allams seem genuine enough up to now.

Stick with the board, at the moment off the field is great and they seem to be making strides to put things right on the field, preapared to invest in players for example.

Some won't agree but I feel that if we dont succed this year Agar will go and they will go for a top replacement.

I very much doubt the club is so awash with cash that the board take salaries to reduce the number to an "acceptable" level. The context here is that the majority of clubs, pretty much all including Warrington and Wigan IIRC, have notes in their accounts that the accounts are only prepared on a going concern basis because of the confirmation of ongoing support by the directors. FC pay hundreds of thousands in rent to the SMC, this much you can deduce from their accounts, it's hardly a gift-wrapped peppercorn rent. So in summary we have big outgoings and turn in better results than most of the competition. I don't believe that all 5 directors can be living it up at our expense, although obviously this is just an opinion, albeit with some pieces of "evidence".

Most of the other boards in SL have directors shovelling money in left right and centre. Is it so ludicrous that, if the venture is cost-neutral, that it's an interesting hobby?

So the general consensus is that most fans arnt interested in success but are more concerned in how much money the club makes. No wonder this club has no desire to succeed when the fans have no passion but prefer to play it safe.

Westerman was a panic buy to sell season tickets after every else had turned us down. We didnt actually need him as its a position we have plenty of cover in.

Disagree on both counts Seb, we have been after him for while.

Also in our squad I dont see a ball handling LF.

If he didn't sign we would be short in the prop department.

The board has the club going in the right direction on and off the field, it's maybe going slower than the supporters want due to past mistakes by the board and previous coachs..

You do talk some cr@p but this is up there with your previous post!!

How do you actually know this and how do you want the club to get closer to the fans, should they have consult a fan day or operate an open door policy for anyone who wants to pop in?
Westerman is an investment in good young English talent and the board have transformed hull into a well run sustainable club. Would you prefer the boom or bust approach? The only questionable decision for me was the contract extension of Agar but you really have to get past your dislike of the board to take an objective view.

The overreaching drawback to any sugar-daddy arrangement is that nothing can be relied upon. Businesses struggle or fail, individuals get bored and look for something else to amuse them, some of the selfish buggers even die.

While it may seem to be good to have a white knight with deep pockets, to fund non-capped areas of expenditure, it is a potentially precarious and ruinous situation to be in and one I wouldn't like to see Hull FC in anytime soon.

Ok lets look at the clubs with sugar daddys. - Saints, Wire, Wigan, Hull KR, Hudds, Leeds - all clubs striving to win things.

Now lets look at those without one - Hull FC, Wakey, Cas, Bradford - All clubs there to just make up the numbers.

I know which group of teams i want Hull FC to be in.

Look at the final league table from last year, then come back and tell me who we are competing with.