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?

The reason Purtill was sacked IMO was to do with who was coming in...just a thought.



I don't [iknow[/i, but I think it's a fair assumption that something other than money was definitely a factor in the decision; only a fool would argue otherwise....

Oh absolutely. And the boys coming in are both home boys aren't they? I'm quite sure McManus didn't get to be in the top 50 bankers by not being a ruthless barsteward who knows how to play people. Nothing better to placate the fans and keep them turning up in numbers than by replacing two individuals passing through with two home boys. But that still isn't a comment on Royce's competence as Cunningham doesn't yet have the proper badges even. IMO that was simply part of the solution to the identified problem which was the possibility of the fans jumping ship.


I like your move there. I saw what you did. If I disagree now I am a fool. Well, there you go. Neither you nor me will ever know the real reasons behind McManus' decision and only a fool would disagree with that statement. But in the meantime we will all speculate until such time as we stop doing.

I was hinting more towards Nathan Brown, but yes I wouldn't disagree with you there (if you take away the cynicism, the general point still has merit)



You need to get out more.

I do. But alas the finances don't allow it.

Shame.

teachers are on a decent whack!

Oh ffs here we go again in yet another thread.

Erm no we can't all speculate. I would never put on here the off-field reasons for why I think he went, any suggesting anything off-field would be wide open to putting this site under liable.

You must get a decent wedge from all the Villages you represent.

Speculating doesn't have to involve anything libelous.

True it doesn't but I would not speculate he was sacked for wearing one blue and one green sock.

One of my favourite posts from one of my favourite posters, the master of one liners.

Well I thought this was a Foster thread?

I don't like it in any sport were the owner becomes the main character, also the one holding all the power, one time they were very little seen or heard of, directors just backed the club with cash investment, not run it!

What's that got to do with foster?

Same as most of the rest of the last few pages of the thread nothing! LOL!