The players obviously are not happy with Gentle or the new regime. Why else so many of these disinterested performances? why else players like Manu, Turner, Moa, O'Meley all wanting out?? something not right at all.

Manu - money
Turner - McRae
Moa - NRL
O'Meley - who cares

- Moa wants out because of the NRL
- O'Meley hasn't being offered a new contract, I get the impression he likes to be king pin or else he'll spit the dummy out.
- Turner wants out so he can go live closer to home, possible dislike of McRae but he's hardly proving to be a massive loss.
- Maybe Manu wants a new challenge? Maybe he'll still stay?

ATEOTD, Gentle has made such a big improvement to us and if the players don't want to be a part of that, they should F off.

Manu is not staying. Not staying. He's leaving. He won't be here next season. Gone.

Spot on for me.

I think some supporters are forgetting that Gentle has been lumbered with his current crop of players and because we had a good first half of the season expectation levels have now become unrealistic.

New owner, new coach, new Assistant coach, new director of rugby, new training ground, new physio, new conditioner, Same old $hit.

Quite frankly I doubt he is the coach to make us into a top side, I don't however believe he is the spawn of the devil and responsible for all the woes in the world which is what most of your fans would have had us believe.

I was just pointing out that for some reason, this year the players are taking some of the stick but previously they were untouchable and it was all (apparently) Agar's fault. Now Gentle is untoucahbale and it is all the players' fault. The truth as ever probably lies somewhere in between the two.

Quite right.... but...

Same players. Same attitudes. You can try and change them. But unfortunatley it doesn't always quite work. They need to wear the pride and passion that only certain individuals have.

When Gentle arrived he spent the whole of pre-season trying to teach the squad "How to want to win" (this is a fact) it seems he's struggling to drill it into them what winning is all about, and if this is the case. F**k em off!

Yesterday was completely unacceptable!

amazing isn't it, we got the "give Agar time" "it's not his team" garbage for FOUR seasons, Gentle gets 4 months!!

Gentle is a great coach, 10 of our current first team are worth keeping, the rest need to go and "find a new challenge"

Which 10, out of interest?

That many??

Isn't that basically what I said? Where's the myth?

If you've read what I posted as me implying something sinister is going on, you're as guilty of misinterpreting my post as what you're accusing people misinterpreting Peter Gentle's statement.

I'm pi$$ed off about recent weeks because of the progress I believe we had made prior to the last 10 minutes of the magic game. However, the underlying $hitness that runs through the team is still apparent and why after all the changes this $hitness in attitude and application is still rife those within the club who hold senior positions needs to identify and weed out sooner rather than later.

TBH, for once I think Standee has made a 'controversial' point with real substance and not for effect. Putting Crooks, Bowden and Kent to one side as fringe players still, the only players I'd definitely say are worth keeping are: Yeaman, Briscoe, Houghton, Lynch, Manu, Tickle, Whiting, and Moa. I'm still undecided to varying degrees and for varying reasons on Seymour, Westerman, Heremaia, O'Carroll, and Pitts. The rest can go for me.

You queried what the "in house issues" might be. Their aren't any in house issues in the sense that you implied. Just the standard type of issues associated with a poor performance but Gentle decided to keep them in house. If you don't want to be "misinterpreted" then I suggest you make yourself clearer in the first place.

I echo your exact thoughts. Unfortunatley we can't weed 7/8 players mid season! We'd be screwed. But come the end of this season! They'll be gone. I can guarantee you that !

Most? Really? It might seem like that but it really isn't.


The players were far from untouchable and had a fair amount of criticism aimed at them in the last few seasons, actually. You might also bear in mind that the majority of these players were signed by Agar.

Actually, that's not how I interpreted Gentle's comments at all. While I agree that nothing sinister or deeply troubling is going on I got the impression that the issues with some players had been present for a while and Gentle had been aware of them before yesterday's debacle. I think others have got it about right when they've suggested that certain players have developed a poor attitude for a variety of reasons and that's what Gentle was alluding to.

I've said myself on this very thread that Gentle was probably talking about the attitude of certain players but that he prefered to keep it in house. That doesn't mean we have "in house" issues as a club/team or that it's an on-going problem, it certainly hasn't been mentioned before. He was directly asked of he could pinpoint what went wrong today and he said yeah their we're a couple of things but we'll keep it in house. That is not the same as saying their are in house issues.

I got the impression he was talking of game plans etc that he wanted to keep "in house" and certainly not anything sinister going on.

I think we basically agree and it's just differing interpretations of words here. Although I got the impression that the attitude problem has been around for a couple of weeks or so. I certainly don't think there are any fundamental problems, just some players acting up.

And the only constant is the very average playing staff

He also said there was lots of work to do in a lot of areas playing wise, as well as an attitude issue within the squad.

In house issues = issues kept in house. You've said exactly the same thing but are arguing that it's different. To quote you "there aren't any in house issues" followed by "there are issues he'd like to keep in house". Slightly contradictory, don't you think?

I've added no other context, so how would you know what I'm implying? I just said I wonder what they are. You've assumed something from what I've said and called it a myth. You've basically started your own myth!

As for being clear, I'd say it was a fairly straight forward question, of which you yourself have (in the end) attempted to answer by saying that the issues are just standard poor performance issues. I'd say that's a pretty vague answer to be fair. What are these standard issues and why hasn't it been rectified?

We all knew that 2012 would be the start of a few seasons of transition as a club, to get us back to competing at the top of SL.

I think IMO we're realistically looking at a minimum of three years, during which there will be some tough periods, periods which will help identify those players that either aren't good enough, or don't have the required commitment & attitude to wear the irregular hoops.

Unfortunately, the club can't release 7 or 8 players today (if they could, I'm sure they would). It's going to be a lengthy process of waiting until contracts finish & paying certain players off, as well as there being the right players available to replace them.

All that said, I didn't expect us to be in the top 5 halfway through the season, especially considering the injury problems we've faced. Maybe this early season form has artificially raised our expectations of when we'll be back competing at the top?

Keep the faith in Pearson, Gentle & McRae. They've got a vision of where they want this club to be, and they're less than 12 months into implementing it.