Gaskells problem isn't Rush, Brown, Simmons, Potter or the boogeyman. Gaskells problem is himself.

heard some interesting stories to back that from a former ceo

Wish some one would spill the beans , I'm one nosy bugger at the min ,

Cool, PM me with them. I love a good gossip.

That's the party line anyway.

I'd want Gaskell back, but I don't think he will return. Howarth's done an alright job for us, but I wouldn't want him to stay any longer than the end of the season.

I never want to see the gazelle Gaskell in a Saints shirt again why! Because he thinks he is a world beater in the Garry Schofield mould who is not in the team for defence. When have you ever heard players break ranks about their own. Senior players have questioned his preparation. The Coaching staff don't want him. In the normal world of work this means you move on. I stood in the rain at Odsal and looked at him and Foster and just wished they were not in a Saints starting 13 ever again. Yes we can go on about Perry and Lance but they are just passing through. These other lads are what you build a team around. Percival I can see it happening Lomax like Roby it is in place, Walmsley it will be in place. Gaskell and Foster lets be proud we brought them through and remember Rush didn't throw them out as youngsters it was they that did not kick on. Rush is a senior manager at the club that is an organisational decision which I respect and wish him well.

Christ what are you Rush's Love Child!!!

If the problem was Rush then Gaskells problems would not be continuing into this season. Rush is not in charge of first team affairs, that's Brown. If Gaskell was playing well then he'd be in, personal problems with Rush or not.

I'm sure I have seen reports recently referring Rush in conncetion with player recruitment. Both Brown and Rush were mentioned in relation to Walmsley, for example.

Also, do you remember when our previous CEO left? Saints put out a press release containing a statement from McManus who reorganised his senior management team following the CEO's departure stating that he would have a more 'hands on' approach from then on. Included in that statement was the point that the coach would now be directly accountable to him, McManus. The implication was that the coach was previously accountable to the CEO. I think it would be safe to surmise that now we have a new CEO, the coach will be accountable to him rather than to McManus.

I would expect signings to be made by consensus, that is not uncommon. Whilst the coach may be accountable to the CEO, I would be surprised if the CEO is involved in the day to day running of the team.

Clubs are large organisations and there will always be some people who don't get on, it would be more surprising if everyone got on. If Gaskell had been performing to a decent standard, he would still be here, players who perform are always given leeway for other issues. Brown picked him at the start of the season, but he didn't take his chance on the pitch. Given the state of the squad, there must be far more than just a dislike of Gaskell by Rush for him to be binned off like he has been.

I would agree with you but for his performances under Simmons. Had he been ditched by Simmons as well as Rush and Brown then concluding there was a question mark over Gaskell himself would be pretty much inevitable. However, that wasn't the case. So I'm not convinced.

Either way, the matter is moot. We've left ourselves without any recognisable halfback. That alone shows crass stupidity in my book, even if Gaskell did have problems or wasn't of the standard. The lad is out of contract this season anyway. To leave ourselves without a single fit recognised halfback is just plain idiotic.

That was over two years ago, a lot changes in that time. I myself thought he had the ability to kick on and become a decent player, he still might.



Correct, which is why I think there is more to this than just an issue between Rush and Gaskell. No coach would willingly lose a useful player because of an issue between that player and the director of the youth team/CEO, they don't come into daily contact it's a non issue. When Rush was coach then fair enough, but he isn't this year and Brown started the season with Gaskell in the team.

I feel I must answer Widnes exile and his throw away comment, which to be fair was just that. I hardly know Mike Rush, however I am aware of parents of young players who have not made it who despise him, that perhaps comes with the territory. My point is a club is a business and the ultimate leader of the business which is Saints decided Rush should be his CEO. That is his choice I glanced a thread on another forum with loonies where stating how clever they were compared to Rush and he shouldn't have a job. I don't know the guy but he must be doing something right. Right to reply exile?

Brown nosing , and 3 games I don't buy it , if he's a lazy get fair enough or bad attitude it's all in the past now anyways ,we have a nice stadiem tho ,left us a full year with out a proper 7 and if you want to be picky a 6

You hardly know the guy, you dont know the guy or maybe you are the guy ????

so whats supposedly gone on with gaskell and rush then?

Rush asked him to play well, which upset lee because he couldn't.

Your on the wrong forum, this one is for individuals who can construct a sentence.

Depends on whose version you believe.

I'm sure come ten years time it will pop up in a fans forum.

In 10 years time people will say " Lee Gaskell - Who was he".

Could be a Another briers in ten years time

Gaskell was shocking today but to be fair to him the whole Salford team were with the exception of Broughton. He looks like he'll be a decent player in a decent team. He's strong and quick.

The whole team was shocking in defence but having watched Full Time, they were better than Warrington in errors made and completion rate. Salford's main downfall is effort in defence and they just couldn't be bothered this week.