yes because every time we dont play to our potential we should sack the coach. As opposed to if we play woefully for 7 straight games when we probably should (and did)

So the aftermath of Royce Simmons is when we play woeful rugby, but when we decide to put some effort in, that is all down to Rush and Cunningham?

We sacked Simmons after finishing runners up in the grand final

No, the fact he signed a fullback to play halfback and the club gave him four years with no chance of now signing a halfback on will set us back years.

And we didn't renew potters contract after finishing runners up in two grand finals and two challenge cup semi finals.

We started off very well against the Dragons. Have you forgotten that lovely little try by Gaskell and Foster for example?

I hate to accuse you of thinking, but have you ever thought - even just briefly - that the reason we played conservative rugby was because we don't have a team that can play off the cuff rugby? At least not against a team that actually offers us opposition, as opposed to Leeds (who have gone on to lose their next two matches - should they sack their coach if they lose the next one?) and Warrington (who gifted us so much ball it was unreal but at least we made the effort during that match to actually pick the ball up when it came loose, unlike on Friday when certain players just stood and watched it until a Wigan player picked it up for us).

The problem is the team, not the coaching staff.

How do you know? I know he left but how do you know that we weren't going to or didn't offer him another contract? I'm glad we didn't. We were dire under him, even thought we still had Longy (for the first year) and Cunningham, Gidley et al to the end of his term.

What this thread highlights is that browns hands are tied as far as squad composition is concerned. Certainly there is no overseas option, unless he can get rid of hohaia or sia goes home. There doesn't appear to be a great deal available at home to replace the likes of meli, so wouldn't be surprised to see him get another year.

Which means that browns priority is to get the best out if what he has available to him. McGuire did it at the goons, taking a bunch if under achieving journeymen to the title, he will need to do something similar, and will have to squeeze something extra out of the players like rush and KC did for two games. I would suggest that the current squad is good enough to compete, if they are well organised and motivated. If we could add an organiser/leader, we will be up there with the best.

This is what Brown has shown at Huddersfield in spades.
FWIW i think we have more talent at Saints than Hudds.

To pick out last year alone is nonsensical. The current recruitment trend has been going on for the best part of four years. It includes three coaches with the single common denominator of McManus. And yet he is given a free pass by seemingly every Saints fan.

Which is a bit of a comedown from the last four years of preferred wisdom where we KNOW we have a greater pool of academy talent than everyone else.

If you check my posts you will see I've been calling our recruitment for many years. We let to many players go and never replaced them.

I can understand that it's near impossible to replace the likes of newlove, longy, scully, KC etc but we should have got the best players possible to replace them and not done it on the cheap.

Sucsseful teams still need to recruit to stay on top and IMO saints stood still while the likes of wolves, Wigan, hudds all built teams.

I honestly think our recruitment for years has been poor and we come to reliant on youth.

It's not just a problem of player recruitment. Many of our difficulties stem from having an academy that is good at producing certain types of players (second row forwards, stand offs, centres etc.) whilst being pretty mediocre at wing, full back, scrum half, prop etc.

This unevenness in production places an enormous burden on the transfer kitty. Especially as good props and halves are always extremely expensive whilst you can pick up a decent second row for change.

It might have something to do with the need to make a profit for a change, or would you rather have the bradford financial situation?
We simply have not been able to afford the very best recruits for the last 4+ years or so.

I'm sure that when the impact of the the financial regime (i.e.no external debt and an average 14,000+ crowd etc) kicks in, then Mac's chequebook will be open for business again.

Not saying Brown has done a bad job, but Hudds have consistently spent the full cap, and apart from some good wins (and equally bad losses) in the regular season, what has he achieved?

Hang on a second. There isn't a single Saints fan I know who would have any problems with McManus reducing player expenditure to secure the stadium, balance the books etc.

It is McManus himself who has year after year after year claimed we are spending up to the cap. You can't blame Saints fans for being puzzled by claims we are spending as much as anyone whilst watching successive teams whose performances are not suggestive of such.

If McManus has embellished the truth about the cap he has brought this on himself because he didn't have to. Saints fans would have accepted the truth at face value. If, on the other hand, he genuinely is paying up to the cap on guys like Meli, Gardner and such - he has also brought this on himself.

I don't think for a minute that we don't spend up to the cap, but you are ignoring up front cash fees including golden handshakes and transfer fees which we cannot afford.
But the math isn't complicated 5 kids = 2 superstars in terms of salaries etc. The only way we could afford big signings would be to have a very thin squad in terms of no's and strength in depth.
In previous years, we would not have coped with the loss of key players as well as we are doing now IMO.
McManus warned only yesterday the perils of SL finances

[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/04/06/RUGBYL_Bradford_McManus.html&BID=480[/url

I believe we were only 1 or 2 years away from beng a bradford basket case until the new stadium and the re-financing came along. IF we show a profit this year (the first in over 10 years?) he might loosen up the purse strings a bit.

I'm sure if McManus came out and said player recruitment will be put on a back burner as we need to build a stadium to save our long term future then many fans would have accepted this.

However, he's constantly banged on how we will have a team to grace the new stadium, he told us the club offered eastmond a massive deal and offered jammer the biggest contract the club has ever offered.

If we had this sort of cash to offer eastmond and jammer huge deals and lost the wages of another high paid player in leon pryce says to me we've not spent to the cap and should have recruited better players.

This post is absolutely spot on.
There is also a concern that some of the youngsters are getting too much coin considering they are unproven or injury prone.

Regardless of cap limit the handling of the overseas quota has been baffling.

Leaves Brown with a lot of gaps to fill with significant restrictions unless some under contract players are offloaded.

Spot on

How do you know anyone else affords such?



Well, the math certainly isn't complicated when you boil it down to the above. Whether this bears any relation to reality I have no idea. I mean, a "kid" can be 18 or he can be 21. I doubt 10 kids age 18 would add up to one superstar's wage. The truth is more complicated.



Which previous years? And in case you haven't realised we're not coping all that well now.



I'm perfectly well aware that SL's finances are worrying. But again - it is McManus who has driven this - not the fans. If we had money worries he could quite easily have come clean, publicly tightened the purse strings and the fans would be ok. Sure, you'd lose a few glory hunters and such but the core fan base - provided they aren't lied to - would be accepting.

What amazes me is that a club like saints, with poor attendances, can afford to consistently finish near the top of the table and get to finals. Compared to clubs like Wigan, Leeds, hull and Warrington with a sugar daddy, we have done remarkably well. I am amazed at dreamers who think we can magic players out of ruin air with very limited funds. Some people really do live in cloud cuckoo land.

ian a sugar daddy? r u sure about that? he doesn't chuck money into wigan every time a player becomes available.

I never said Wigan had a sugar daddy, I said Warrington do. You are right, leneghan has put very little into the club

That is the closest I've seen you give this new set up any credit at all!!!