I think there's a section of our fans who haven't really got to grip with the idea of a club being run professionally rather than as a hobby. The fact that our BOD isn't made up of fans willing to bankrupt the club on the altar of success at all costs seems to irk them.

Kath hailing from Leeds seems to be a big issue for some as well.

In other words, no logical or rational reasons.

I think it is the Leeds connection with the Hetheringtons what irks a lot of fans, when you look at what they have achieved since 2005 CC compared to us.

The Hetheringtons are not in sole control at either club. In fact, Gary is an employee at Leeds. Hence the lack of logic in being irked by the connection.

TBH at this present time the club is probably the most successful it ever has been off field but the lack of success on field is clouding peoples views I feel.

Its is safe and secure in the fact it runs on its own finances and not beholding to a sugar daddy for cash. The club is unrecognisable from the club in the days of the Boulevard as it is now a professional business which can only be a good thing. Yes they board at times shoot themselves in the foot with some of the things they do but in general I feel we the fans have more access to the club than we have had for many a year.

If the clubs off field success can be replicated to on field success then no one can really have any call to complain (well apart from Bighead maybe lol).
We now have strong foundations in place to continue to build on which sadly cant be said of others in SL that lurch from one crisis to another.

As a Hull fan I am happy that the club seems to be in safe hands but a little disappointed in the lack of success on field which is the next step the club need to achieve.

My father was a director in the halcyon days, bringing Bunting in etc. He always said the board he was part of were a bunch of lifelong fans of the club who, as directors, were enthusiastic amateurs with the ability to put some cash in. When that cash dried up (or was no longer enough to keep them at the top) the wheels came well-and-truly off (for decades) and it has taken this professional board a long time to re-attach them. They have done a marvellous job: and if anyone thinks Mrs Hetherington is not passionate about the club they ought to spend some time in her company when the team are losing - and you only need a short conversation with her to see what a fundamental grasp of the game she has. We have more chance of sustained success with this board than we have ever had in my lifetime.

As for Richard Agar, I believe that they are showing faith in their choice of coach also as a long-term investment believing that if he comes up with the goods he will be the catalyst of that success. I am also sure that the Board are business people and, therefore, there is a point of no return for him beyond which failure will mean the end of his tenure - and that will be some time during this season. If he is successful (and I don't know how they will measure that success, although I would expect it will involve a top four finish and/or an appearance at Wembley) expect another extension to his contract.

apart from Mcmanus at saints i don't think the other so called 'benefactors' will be here long term.wire and wigan's accounts were subsidised,as are rovers obviously,but what happens when these people decide to go?or say,hit financial problems?wakefield for a lot of years have relied on ted richardson,but he is no longer able to provide finance,hence their struggle.salford are subsidised by john wilkinson too,for which he readily admits.Leeds made a profit,due only to the sale of property/land iirc?

such is the merry go round that is sport / business huh

Gretna < enough said

Wimbledon.

A Sugar daddy who uses his own money doesn't destabilise a club IMO. It is those who use other people's money (ie people who want and expect it back) or build a system from which it is impossible to retreat, that destroy otherwise sound clubs.
It doesn't have to be one of the other - you can have a sugar daddy and a sound business to fall back on. Wire would be okay (not as strong as now, of course), Saints too, once they're in their new ground. HKR would maybe just about get by with some trimming of the squad, Huddersfield perhaps and certainly Quins would struggle.

possibly,and possibly not!! if Moran was to say he has had enough,wire would struggle to cope financially.their off-field revenue streams aren't as good as people like to think,and they rely heavily on Mr Moran to subsidise this.

They regularly get over 10k and would still have the Sky money - they mightn't expect to compete [ifor[/i SL, but they could certainly compete [iin[/i it.

Now we're in SL the HKR board are the difference between us competing [iin[/i SL and merely surviving.

To compete regularly with Wigan and Leeds even the best-supported other clubs need a benefactor IMO (for reasons that are not all economic). The cap does even things out at least.

Where do Wigan come into it......ok last season they won it but Lenaghan isnt as coined as what Whelan was and they won bugger all under his ownership and was nearly relegated 1 season...so a "Benefactor" dosent help at all...if anything...they shore up the shortfalls......where would Hudds be without Davey.......only 2 teams make a profit...Us and Leeds...and 1 of them doesnt have a Benefactor.

it is broke we perenial under achievers!!!!!