It seems to me that the club handle player contracts, signings, retentions and development (Promotion or not of young players) exclusively at board level.

I know in football there are always managers moaning about the board doing deals there weren't keen on, but in league it seems as though they are all done like this. Clubs will often sign players even though their coach isn't working for them at that stage.

For example Saints had completed our recruitment for this season before Royce Simmons was appointed. Bradford signed Paul Sykes to a long contract whilst managerless etc. If this is the case how come we don't see more high profile 'director of rugby' types in league? Do these positions exist and I'm just not aware of them?

Am I right about this? Is is McManus who decides who gets a new deal and who we sign?

Probably, though I expect there is input form various backroom staff.

It's no major difference than most European football clubs really. The coach is a head coach, not a manager.

I assume that the coach will out line the most important positions that need strengthening and which players are preferable, the board members and management will then then try and do the business side, making sure the terms of capturing said player are practical business for the club.

So who would have done this for Saints? Mick Potter? Or would Royce have done it prior to being appointed?

I can't see it being Royce as it wouldn't know enough about LMS or Shenton presumably.

I guess our positional needs didn't come all of a sudden, so mick would have had an input through the season. Perhaps Keiron Purtill as well. I don't see how Royce could have had much bearing on the Shenton and LMS signings, and I'm pretty sure Ted was signed before him.

I think its fair to say its a collective effort, but the board are the ones with the final say as they write the cheques.

most clubs have a 'football manager' who looks after contracts and deals with agents etc. It would be them, in conjunction with the coaching staff who make decisions.

And who is that for Saints?

George Osbourne

Me. Have you got a problem?

"most clubs" = Salford and what a job Steve Simms does.

A few years ago Kel Coslett was football manager, but not at present.
now he is gameday manager

Not at all.

I think you'll find that most clubs do have them, not just salford. Its a position that doesnt really attract the limelight unless you make yourself public like Steve Simms does.

I guess that Mike Rush, as High Performance Manager, takes on this parts of this role.

Come on then name these "most clubs"

Warrington don't
Saints don't
Wigan don't
Leeds don't
Crusaders don't

I can't be certain aboiut the others so please enlighten me.

That is what I was thinking. I would say that McManus would have the final say with Mike Rush as an advisor. The coach would get some influence if he was respected and established i.e. Potter = No, Anderson = Yes.

Importantly Mike Rush has the best idea what we are going to produce from within so he is in the best place to identify where the gaps in talent are going to be. This is obviously the most important thing to know when signing new players or letting others go.

What a ridiculous statement.

I would imagine Saints have a long term plan for player recruitment, and aren't simply looking to sign the next player who comes along. For instnace, they will have a fair idea of when Wellens needs replacing, and how they are going to do it. Similarly with Gidley leaving, they have known for a couple of years that a replacemtn is needed, gone out and got him. That is far better than simply getting on a plane to Aus, and signing whover is offered to them at the time. Whoever does Saints recruitment, has been doing a pretty good job for the last few years. Allowing coaches to have 100% control of player movements results in short termism, maonly to save their own skins.

Why, on all of god's green earth, would the board hire a coach if they didn't value his opinion on rugby?

agree.i would go as far as saying that our recruitment for season 2012 has allready been identified and probably completed.

Yup, unless there's any truth to the Pryce rumour in which case surely we'd be looking to reinvest? Not a pre-planned move, maybe, and not ideal because of it but a necessary one IMO.

In the past we have never panicked in the transfer market,especially with long term injuries.If Pryce left now,unless there is a top quality replacement available,which there isnt,i couldnt see us replacing him for the sake of it.

I know. Problem is though, going into the season with no established stand off will see us struggle to make any kind of impact. We saw this year when Pryce and / or Eastmond were injured, we lacked a spark at times. If we run with the inexperienced Lomax or fragile Wheeler as first choice SO, we can write off our chances of silverware before a ball is kicked IMO.

Maybe there's no quality replacement available for free, but money talks and we should reinvest whatever fee we get for Pryce.

i have said it before that our biggest mistake last year was going into the season with only 1 recognised half back,and 1 who we thought would be good but had never played there regularly.If Pryce does leave we are stuffed.I thought the possible signing of Luke Dorn might have solved this,but it wasn't to be.Lets hope Pryce stays and our halves are injury free,because as good as our recruitment has been,we are week in this department.