Which makes him perfect assistant, rather than head, coach material. Alas he wasn't our assistant coach.

Let's see if Wests give him the head coaching job seeing as they are so desperate to have him back...

Translation: "What the fook were you doing out there?"

Quite simple really.


I've replied to you on that already.

I posted on here before anyone else that IMO Jamie needed taking out the first team (not dropped) to build his confidence and maybe bring him down a peg or two as I got the feeling he thought he was better than he was.

I've never ever said rest backs, resting wingers and centres week in and week out like Royce knocked any sort of partnership you firm as a centre/winger partnership.

I think Jamie will come back better than he's ever been. I know for a fact he's chomping at the bit and when he gets back in, he intends to stay in because KC will not drop him if he's playing well unlike the idiot.

Just swallow your pride and admit Simmons was gash. We was boring, unorganised, clueless and lacked heart under him. The fact he was in charge for our worst ever run says it all.

That's fine. I have no problem with that. I hope he goes back there and continues the good work he was doing there.

He still got us to the Grand Final last season and he gave debuts to some very promising young players AND he did it all through a very turbulant time. So he was a decent head coach as well.

But lest I forget, he sinned against the Mighty Saints for we played BORING RUGBY!!! (We didn't, actually, at least not all the time, but hey, some fans think Daniel Anderson made us play boring rugby)

Worse than that ... WE LOST FOUR MATCHES and they were ON THE BOUNCE! Hellfire and damnation. Sacrilege. The unforgivable sin.

There you go. And now you slate Royce for doing the same thing.

The rest of what you said was your usual blather and I'm not interested in responding to it anymore.

It's the way we lost them and who we lost them to.

We was so disorganised is was funny! Totally clueless. Even the players didn't want him.

By the way, wasn't it you bagging potter for boring rugby?


We was suppose to be making Langtree park a fortress yet we've seen fans boo us off.

Bye bye royce, don't ever come back (unless it's as Wigan head coach)

Hull, you mean? They're now second in the table. Last season we lost to Quins and the team were booed off then as well. They were booed off against Hull while Potter was in charge too. Saints fans boo when they aren't happy with their team.

Last season we turned it around the very next game. Guess who we played? Ah yes. Leeds. Funny that.

Hull won't make the top four, they'll be lucky to make the top six.

He got the sack because he was gash

You think? Was Purtill gash too?

Are you really that daft?

The problem is that it appears to people reading your posts that you do.




I think most would be quite happy for him to carry on having a successful career.



Hmmm, but so did Potter. He achieved no more than Potter ever did, Potter had to introduce a lot of the players that Simmons picked, the only players that hadn't been brought into the first team under Potter were Makinson and Ashe IIRC.



Yet you have posted numerous diatribes about the very similar (in style and results) Potter...



We've been playing boring rugby since Millward left. We just had better players with more experience under Anderson.



It's the manner of the defeats that have been worrying, however I did think it only needed tinkering with when we were losing, it's just that Simmons didn't tinker in the right places.

You do seem to put Purtill's name forward in defence of Simmons quite a bit, why is that?

In defence? Don't be soft. He was sacked at the same time as Royce. If the change in coaching staff was as a result of Royce being 'gash' as Pete puts it, why was Purtill fired at the same time?

The whole change was to do with money. If the same set of results had happened this time last season I would happily bet my salary, such as it is, on Royce and Purtill not losing their jobs.

However, McManus, who in an interview clearly stated that he has become more 'hands on' since the stadium has been built, saw a lot of booing fans and thought 'Fook! I still owe my mate in Singapore three million! They can't all leave now! Let's get my little gofa in to save the day' Every organisation has its gofas. The club men. The ones who will wash the laundry and clean the toilets if the boss asks them to. Even when they are senior management.

So Mr. Teflon isn't a Saint?

Well you consistently bring him up as if it's unbelievable that he was sacked, and by association it's unbelievable that Simmons was sacked.



That's a lot of assumption, you don't know the internal workings or what went on behind closed doors. Maybe they wouldn't have been sacked at the same point last year, but at that point Simmons would only have had a few months in the job, rather than a year and a few months.



That's a pretty ridiculous statement and I'll leave that there, but I'd just like to point out to the grammar pedant, that it's spelt 'Gopher'

Hey, I'm not expressing an original thought. The media, other fans ... I've heard/read many people suggesting that the stadium played a big part in motivating McManus to fire the two coaches, based largely on panic at the thought of losing the newly found fanbase. And it is widely acknowledged that Rush and Cunningham are club men - 'St Helens through and through' I believe the phrase is. Gofa is just a slightly derisory alternative.

It don't say much for Royce if a gofa doing a better job than him

That is what you have inferred. It is not what has been said. The head coach getting sacked after a run of losses is quite uncommon in RL outside Wigan - common enough in soccer of course - but how many times have you known a coach and the assistant be sacked at the same time? That would simply suggest that the head coach was not actually the problem but there was a problem elsewhere which was considered solvable only by wholesale change.


I am assuming nothing. I said I would place a bet.






But it is not a proper noun and nor does your use of it refer directly to a previously mentioned person or place. Therefore, no capital letter at the beginning.

Really? I missed the Grand Final then. And we won it?

Yes we've lost the last five.

The coach and his assistant are a team, if one is sacked I expect the other to be sacked as well.



Then you either know something that is not in the public domain or are a bad gambler.



Arguing semantics whilst getting basics wrong...

It probably was a factor in sacking Royce, but a small one at that. I can't see, however, how Purtill fits into that hypothesis?

Anyway you said: '[ithe whole change was to do with money[/i' which is clearly untrue.

Except when did that last happen?


And on what do you base your judgement that my gamble would be bad?


You mean making a spelling mistake?

And the word you want isn't 'semantics' but I won't push you on that as that really would be pedantic.

Royce was the head coach. He was where the buck stopped. Therefore, if both Royce AND Purtill were sacked, as they were, then there must have been something other than Royce's competence behind the decision McManus made. Had it been simply a question of Royce's competence, only Royce would have gone. The only 'other' that makes sense is the stadium. Not the physical building but the massive investment of time, energy and money McManus has made to enable that stadium to be built. Hearing the crowd booing the team would have seriously worried him as he will both want and need the fans to keep on coming in numbers.


How do you know?