Salford red all over wrote:
Problem with Hull is they think they are a big club and they probably base that on number of fans or potential fans, but on the field they are anything but a big club. (I'm not having a go but the truth hurts) it's just like saying Newcastle United are a big club because 52k turn up there nothing what have they won the fairs cup or 7something many moons ago. I recently said they would be better off with Rowley than Hodgson (not that I want that to happen) but the replys seemed to say we don't want to go down that road we are Hull were bigger than that. I've got news for you no your not, I'm sure once you sack Hodgson theres another NRL nobody waiting in the wings. I hope you take that constructively but I doubt it. BTW Radders looks like the chains are off.
The whole 'big club' thing entirely depends on how you define it. If you judge it by on-field results you'd be hard pressed to find any Hull fan who'd argue we are a 'big' club. If you base it on fan base then I think you could make an argument that we are. If it's a combination of the two then probably not. Personally I couldn't give a stuff either way.
I don't know any Hull fans who think we have a right to be winning things. As far as I can tell the general feeling is that given the fan base and cap spend the club should be doing better on the field than it is.
We're a mid-table team and have been for awhile, I'm quite comfortable with that fact, its the massive blowouts and the players perceived lack of spine that annoys us.
Bear in mind that some of the more vocal posters on our board are consistently negative about absolutley everything.
Rowley seems to be doing a good job at Salford currently but I'm not convinced any coach would make much difference atm. We've had the same issues under the last 3.
FWIW I am consistently impressed with how Salford go about things given they seem to have to rebuild the team most years.