: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:34 pm  

Roofaldo wrote:

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?

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:36 pm  

Roofaldo wrote:

Well something needs to be done. The current setup is not getting the results no matter how you chose to spin the facts.

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.

Roofaldo wrote:

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.

"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"?

Roofaldo wrote:

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

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

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

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

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

"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"?

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

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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

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

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:36 pm  

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.

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 5:38 pm  

Roofaldo wrote:

What I mean is that McNamara and his staff seem to consistantly fail to get the team to produce consistant performances on the pitch.

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

Roofaldo wrote:

It's not one performance.

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.

Roofaldo wrote:

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

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?

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:06 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:33 pm  

[quote="Ferocious Aardvark"
Whichever way you do it, it involves you (at least) doubling your head coach bill, or writing a big cheque to the outgoing man.[/quote]

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

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:39 pm  

ex Bull Dog wrote:

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...?

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:45 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

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.

: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:00 pm  

redeverready wrote:

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.