I'm not suggesting he takes over as head coach. I'm just suggesting someone with coaching experience of a team at our current level.

Well something needs to be done. The current setup is not getting the results no matter how you chose to spin the facts. People are bleeting about not making knee jerk reactions and not sacking the coach but it would appear that offering an alternative solution garners the same responses.

damned if you do damned if you don't is how it seems to me

His argument regarding offering solutions is irrefutable, I suggest?

We don't know just how much Steve has on his shoulders, particularly in matters not directly related to coaching the first team. What we do know is that they are having to run a very tight ship up there. I'd suggest that anything that lightened the burden of peripheral responsibilities on Steve's shoulders - that we could afford - would have to be a good thing?

I don't agree that "something needs to be done" as a euphemism for "get another coach". If you meant something else, please say, and i'll tell you what I think.


"Bleating"? But sacking the coach for one performance - however bad - is about as knee jerk as it gets. What alternative solution? If you mean adding a huge wage bill so as to have another coach, and McNamara retained as some sort of 'pretend' coach, seems like the worst of all worlds to me. It's not "the same response", as nobody has put the point before to respond to, so how could it be "the same response"?


Don't really understand what you're referring to there.

What I mean is that McNamara and his staff seem to consistantly fail to get the team to produce consistant performances on the pitch. Now, this may be down to players playing with injures, an over all lack of fitness with certain players, tactical ineptitude or a combination of all 3. Bringing in someone with fresh ideas might actually alter that



It's not one performance. It's constant under performances in games against play-off bound teams (yes wigan have had a bad start but I'd bet money that kicking the crap out of us will help spur them on better than it will spur us on to avoid future defeats)

I doubt Greg Bird would be on NMW so we'd hardly be adding a wage that the club couldn't already afford by bringing in a new coach



Well I make no bones about the fact I do not believe McNamara is up to the job and that he should be replaced. This opinion makes me vilified in certain eyes. However, some people on here feel he should be given longer so I offer an alternative to sacking and recieve just as much vilification. damned if you do

just a suggestion but rather than a director of rugby, which would inevitably undermine macca how about improving the assistant coaches? Paul medley has to stay for the work he's doing with the youth but I totally fail to see what basil richards and lee st hilaire bring to the party. Given that one of maccas perceived failings is being too close to the players and unable to give them a dressing down how about bringing in someone to help as assistant and be the 'hardman' and give more direction from the touchline?

Theres two obvious candidates with SL experience and a history with bulls already in karl harrison and jimmy lowes (and he certainly looked pee'd off enough to leave wire at the press conference announcing smith last week

). The only caveat to this move, would be to only bring them in on a one year initial contract, so that if we do eventually decide to replace macca then the incoming head coach has a freehand to bring in his own backroom staff next season.

also can't imagine losing the present assistants would involve unmanageable payouts. Just a further thought, people keep saying that macca picked his assistants. Apart from the standard club press releases where he said this (and would he be allowed to say anything else?) what proof do we have for this idea and is it possible that they imposed on him by the board as a cost cutting measure.

Or, it may be the normal condition, for practically any team, give or take?


Beg to differ. When's the last time a Bradford team played as poorly as that? Clue: Yoou'd have to go back many years.


The trouble with a fair proportion of the NT/Sack Mac brigades is they have such thin skins, and see any post disagreeing with their view as "vilification". It's a strange trait, this uber-touchiness. Who vilifies you?

2nd half of the 2007 play-off against Wigan. I'd hardly call that a glowing performance, that's not many years. The drubbing Leeds handed us last easter at Headingley. Was that not of a similar poor level?

Who vilifies me? Well maybe that was too strong a word. However you seem very quick to disagree with anyone who voices the same opinions as me. So it would seem you're no better than me just because you want to stick with what we've got. But let's face it, if humanity kept to that mindset we'd all still be sat in trees flinging poo at each other

You keep saying we can't afford to sack Mcnamara - how do you know? Sure we don't have a load of £ to rub together but you may find there's no option if performances don't improve

I guess if the club has just had to let a number of staff go, when the ship is tight enough as it is, its sort of means that the funds are not there? Or is that a tad naive...?

So why did the club tell every thing financially is rosy at the fans forum like wise we was a senior member of the club telling supporters the exact same thing before the Huddersfield game. IMO the club needs to be more transparent with whats going on. It wouldn't excuse the performances of late but people may be more willing to accept it better if they know more of whats happening.

Er...I refer the honourable gentleman to the issue I have raised several times earlier!

There has to be a balance struck between providing realistic information and what makes sense commercially. As I said in an earlier post though, I think the club would benefit on balance by being a bit more candid with the fans.

I guess also that the club will now have a better idea of the likely attendances and income streams now the season has started. I also suspect that, like most businesses, the club realises the recession is going to be far far worse than originally expected and than most people still appreciate (I still doubt that more than a few percent of the population yet realise just how seriously our economy has been damaged, and for at least a generation). That's all conjecture on my part though.

The phrase "financially everything is rosy" was never used at the meeting.

Anyway since the meeting we have had the biggest finacial crisis since the last depression, and while I suppose it's possible, I don't think either McNamara nor Hood could either be blamed for it, nor could they have been expected to predict it. It's bound to hit all clubs hard.

I never said it had been used.

Yes you did.

No I didn't say that exact phrase had been said. I used it cover a few points that had been said to convey that message that indeeded everything was rosy.

Which one? Where we lost by a point?




Not at all. It wasn't our greatest day, but like when Saints handed our arrses to us at VP, you have to give a lot of credit to the opposition on the day.


Eh? So you wouldn't mind me putting my POV, if I did it slower?




When did I claim to be better than you, or anyone? And i don't necessarily "want" to "stick with what we've got", I would be delighted if we could afford to twist, call, or even raise, but only if there is a reasonable expectation of winning. People who want to call blind, regardless of who's bet what or how many chips they have in their stack, are the ones I don't agree with.


See, you agree with me!! Let a natural evolution process take its course, and you get progress. Don't shoot the chimps, eventually they'll get it!!!

I'd call the biggest collapse in super league history a pretty poor 2nd half.

It could back the arguement that Mcnarama hasn't won a "big" game yet.

After leading by a very large margin

Still speculation

Nobody is disputing the facts, including that Wigan got on a fantastic roll that we couldn't (quite) stop, and eneded up losing a match we should never have lost.

What is just weird though is to compare it with the abomination at the JJB. In the play-off game we played some absolutely fantastic stuff and looked like, and for a time were, playing Wigan off the park. So how can that possibly be validly compared with a performance like last weekend's? It deserves a mention in the book, of course, but not in the chapter of performances devoid of merit. The only connection is that Wigan won both, and there the similarity ends.

Ah. So you're not denying that you said they [isaid[/i everything is financially rosy, you are saying that you didn't [imean[/i to say that they said that, but meant that they [iconveyed the message[/i that everything is financially rosy.

You might not have meant it, but why deny you said it?

I'm sure there is some important difference between them actually [isaying[/i that everything is financially rosy and them [iconveying the message[/i that everything is financially rosy, but it just escapes me for the moment. Would you mind refreshing my memory and explain the point of the distinction?

IMO the first half was Harris's best performance for the Bulls.

May have been. Harris gave it to them good, but then they handed our Harrises to us in the second half

Of course. Silly of anyone to get that impression.