You do seem to put Purtill's name forward in defence of Simmons quite a bit, why is that?

In defence? Don't be soft. He was sacked at the same time as Royce. If the change in coaching staff was as a result of Royce being 'gash' as Pete puts it, why was Purtill fired at the same time?

The whole change was to do with money. If the same set of results had happened this time last season I would happily bet my salary, such as it is, on Royce and Purtill not losing their jobs.

However, McManus, who in an interview clearly stated that he has become more 'hands on' since the stadium has been built, saw a lot of booing fans and thought 'Fook! I still owe my mate in Singapore three million! They can't all leave now! Let's get my little gofa in to save the day' Every organisation has its gofas. The club men. The ones who will wash the laundry and clean the toilets if the boss asks them to. Even when they are senior management.

So Mr. Teflon isn't a Saint?

Well you consistently bring him up as if it's unbelievable that he was sacked, and by association it's unbelievable that Simmons was sacked.



That's a lot of assumption, you don't know the internal workings or what went on behind closed doors. Maybe they wouldn't have been sacked at the same point last year, but at that point Simmons would only have had a few months in the job, rather than a year and a few months.



That's a pretty ridiculous statement and I'll leave that there, but I'd just like to point out to the grammar pedant, that it's spelt 'Gopher'

It don't say much for Royce if a gofa doing a better job than him

That is what you have inferred. It is not what has been said. The head coach getting sacked after a run of losses is quite uncommon in RL outside Wigan - common enough in soccer of course - but how many times have you known a coach and the assistant be sacked at the same time? That would simply suggest that the head coach was not actually the problem but there was a problem elsewhere which was considered solvable only by wholesale change.


I am assuming nothing. I said I would place a bet.

Really? I missed the Grand Final then. And we won it?

The coach and his assistant are a team, if one is sacked I expect the other to be sacked as well.



Then you either know something that is not in the public domain or are a bad gambler.

It probably was a factor in sacking Royce, but a small one at that. I can't see, however, how Purtill fits into that hypothesis?

Anyway you saidthe whole change was to do with money[/i' which is clearly untrue.

Except when did that last happen?


And on what do you base your judgement that my gamble would be bad?


You mean making a spelling mistake?

And the word you want isn't 'semantics' but I won't push you on that as that really would be pedantic.

Royce was the head coach. He was where the buck stopped. Therefore, if both Royce AND Purtill were sacked, as they were, then there must have been something other than Royce's competence behind the decision McManus made. Had it been simply a question of Royce's competence, only Royce would have gone. The only 'other' that makes sense is the stadium. Not the physical building but the massive investment of time, energy and money McManus has made to enable that stadium to be built. Hearing the crowd booing the team would have seriously worried him as he will both want and need the fans to keep on coming in numbers.


How do you know?

The reason Purtill was sacked IMO was to do with who was coming in...just a thought.



I don't [iknow[/i, but I think it's a fair assumption that something other than money was definitely a factor in the decision; only a fool would argue otherwise....