You could have Lowes back in exchange for your pre-game entertainment!
That singer is great!

what?

Agree totally with your second point. Don't agree that the first point necessarily follows at all though - see below.



Evidence? Or opinion? And even if it did, it would hardly happen overnight. Personally I do not think you would see anything like that increase (although you would surely arrest the decline and expect some more to return). You'll only get a big increase by attracting new fans, and that basically means the kids and the families again. The marketing, in fact. Would all take time to have any significant effect.



Is it? What matters is the incremental contribution (call it "gross profit" for on here), and that would be far less than the figure you quote. People always forget the VAT too... At least one other regular contributor on here was in the meeting when a chief exec told us the figure, which I think we need to keep to ourselves obviously.



Except, how much would that payoff need to be? I've said before it would likley be rather more than many people assume. And see my comments above regarding how long it would take to increase the crowds, and why your figure is anyway far too high. My guess is you'd be lucky to recover the termination costs over the full season, if that, even with a very decent crowd increase.



Ill leave others to debate those choices from a coaching perspctive. But I just wonder if you appreciate just how much more than our existing coaching team that lot would cost, if indeed you were able to entice them - remember you'd have to settle with clubs for existing contracts. I'd guess at at at least double, plus compensation, but that's speculation. So that's even bigger gates again that you'd need.



I'm sure your suggestions are genuine and well-meaning, but I just can't see how the numbers will ever add up.

All that said, something needs to change - and if we cannot afford to do anything at all to change the status quo then we really are fekked.

That was a great pre-match band IMO - amidst all the rest of the crapness I think recognition of that got lost. The guy in front of me sings and plays in a similar band, and he was well impressed with them.

We had all this out on a thread a bit back - I guess I could go find the link.

It anyway depends on whether he is contracted to end 2009 (as most people think/thought) or 2010 (as Hood suggested in an interview with Sledger a few weeks ago.

I'm not really in a position to speculate on exactly how much his package is worth - not least cos I really have no specific idea! But remember to add in the car (no doubt part of the JCT600 sponsorship?) and other benefits to whatever the salary is. And is it conceivable that a SL Head Coach would be on, lets say £50k pa? Or would people expect rather more than that? And then its a question of whether his contract gives specific rights in event of termination, and whether a compromise agreement would be likely (I assume so) in which case that would cost the club. There are loads of factors which could affect the amount - including employee duty to mitigate the loss, tax treatment and avoiding enrichment. I've always assumed any settlement would have to run well into six figures, but I'm really only speculating. Remember also you'd likely have a chunk of Employers' NIC to pay as well.

Thanks. A lot then potentially!! Makes you wonder why it seems to happen so regularly then with some teams.

Sorry, missed the previous thread.

Ok, genuine question...

...do coaches have some kind of performance expectation in their contract? For example, the contract is null and void if the team don't achieve..such and such?

In my job, as in most I should imagine, I have regular performance reviews and if I don't perform to expected standards, I could be sacked. I wouldn't get a big pay off because I'm being made jobless before the end of my contract.

So why is a coach or a player exempt? If you don't perform, why should they expect to be retained or paid off?

Potentially yes COULD be a lot. But it COULD be a lot less too, in fairness. In what I do for a living, prudence is drilled into you, mind!

A team with a rich benefactor will likely find it much easier to find the funds necessary, I guess.

I don't know a great deal on this but the word of sporting contracts is very different to other areas of employment. Being able to sack purely on the basis of performance really would open up a can of worms - we'd probably only have Morrison, Menzies, Burgess, Lynch and Nero turning up each day knowing they'd still have a job at the end of the day right now as everyone else would be in breach.

Like I have said previously we are a club in transition. There is no short term solution, all the best players are already at clubs and will not be enticed away to Bulls. We are in for the long haul, while relegation is not an issue we have time to rebuild, lets take the nettle by the hand as painful as it would be to languish in the bottom of SL. Sack the "superstars" who have no pride in pulling a Bulls shirt on clear the decks and start the rebuild, to challenge for honours come 2012/3. All else is delusion and pie in the sky. Support the Head Coach and stop booing guys on the pitch who bodies are on the line.

Also, you've only got to look at this forum to see how difficult it is to nail responsibility for team performance on the coach. That said, it's pretty much beyond doubt now.

Yes I see that, but a coach? It would not be unreasonable to have it in a coaches contract before he (or she!) signed:

We are giving you these players, this much money, etc and in return the minimum we expect would be....

If they didn't like it they would not have to sign it!

For things off the pitch, professional misconduct, etc, the coach is subject to the sack just like anyone else. As such it would seem reasonable that the answer to your question must be down to the fact that there's just too many variables to be able to demonstrate that what happens on the pitch is 100% down to the performance of the coach rather than well trained but ultimately unlucky or erratic players on the day. (if you see what i mean)

Be a bit hard to come up with anything workable when you have issues like injuries to queer the pitch?

I've said before and I will say it again we may not be able to afford to sack Macca but if things carry on as they are ultimately we won't be able afford not to sack him.

But common sense could come into play.
Or it could just be tough.

Unfortunately professional sportsmen, and their managers, operate in a different world.

Having said that I know of one football league manager who is on a rolling contract, which automatically gets renewed as long as his team finish above a certain position in the league.

It doesn't mean he'd have to be sacked if they didn't manage it, there could be reasonable grounds for the underachievement, but if he is making a balls-up of the job then at least his club aren't stuck with him.

Id agree with some form of quantifiable measure of performance in a coaches contract, such as a required win ratio, or reaching certain stages of available comps. With common sense coming in to play to keep the coach if there are very good non quantifiable reasons for the set targets being missed.

lowes is not the man.
has anyone noticed how well matt calland is doing at halifax?

I reckon though that this is pretty much covered by a 3 year contract. In that time you'd hope that luck and injuries will average themselves out and the coach will have had the time to let the players that he does not want to leave when OOC and equally bring his own in while also being able to set his own style and manner of play. If he's doing well then great, if not then time for change once his contrct lapses. This should work particulrly well now that relegation is gone leaving the club management to focus on off pitch work and development.

which is why earlier this year I posted more than once that Mcnamara will effectively sack himself this year with these results if his contract is up at the end of this season as the club could not be seen to extend it with current form. Although if its true he's here next year (still not sure about that) as well then we'd be stuck with him unless we'd put in some clause about win ratio or postions or the like.

And even with a 3 year contract, lets say we'd given steve a 3 year contract in jan 2009, we then get a 20% win ratio from our first 10 games (the current position), then lets say this trend contiunes and we end the season with a 20% win ratio leaving us rock bottom and still contractually bound to honour or pay up his contract for a further two years. If we had a clause that stipulated a 40% win ratio or clubs discression below that mark we could get shut for no cost and he couldn't complain. If I missed targets by 50% at work I would be looking for a new job thats for sure.

Please take him! Hooker...Coach...Bull Boy, whatever you want jimmy for

Possibly. I do agree with what you're saying in terms of demanding accountability of a coach, but am just considering the practicalities as you've also got to bear in mind that any individual taking a job is doing it as his livelihood.

The whole 20% with an overlay of common sense is great in principle, but you always come back to an element of opinion as to what was reasonable to expect given injuries, luck, players inherited, etc.

This is true, and is pretty much why we have the system we have now, a 3 year contract or whatever to be renewed or cancelled depending upon performance like you said earlier, which is already far harsher than a lot of conditions for "normal" jobs, including mine.

I'm not saying its what we definately should do, its just all good for discussion as its been widely suggested (by me as well as notable others) that one of the fundamental reasons Hood cannot replace McNamara easily or painlessly even if he wanted to (and I'm not sure he does want to) is that we cant afford to pay up his and his staffs contracts whilst paying for his replacments as well due to the financial constraints upon the club.

But an element of performance related criteria during the contract length couldn't hurt could it? Tupou was released as he was found in breach of a performance aspect of his contract to all intents and purposes - cant train, cant play, ta ra lad. Cant coach (?), cant win....