I'll join you.

Relatively strong in the back row? Are you serious? Langley is our best back rower and his playing record over the last 3 seasons is poor. Elima is a good player and the only back rower we have who would stand a a chance of being named in the 17 of Wire, Hudds, Wigan. Whitehead has struggled in a struggling team and Olbison and Donno are only young. Sibbitt has played better these couple of weeks but wouldn't have been picked up by another SL side. Even when all are fit it's only OK and as soon as Langley/Elima are injured we are bottom 4.

We are relatively strong in the back row. Langley has had very bad luck with injuries but that's life, he's back now. Elima would be a cndidate for most teams. Whitehead, Olbison and Donaldson are our future in that department and of course they aren't the leading forwards in the comp, but they are learning fast, and have all shown great promise so far as I'm concerned. All three look way above average, and Donaldson was on fire before his injury. It doesn't help them to have played so much in a weakened team on occasions getting flogged, but to varying degrees, while they are a way from the finished article, they are hot properties. "Relatively strong" is to me a fair call.

They're not mystical Adey, other clubs have attracted them. I'm beginning to wonder what responsibilites the board do hold if by your analysis they;
can't sack a coach
can't sign good players that other clubs would want
can't attract inward investment in support of their vision for the club

These are pretty serious failings and would raise the question of whether the management was fit for purpose.

Love way you try to turn every thread round to your pet hobby of taking a pop at the board. You really do have a bee in your bonnet about them don't you?

Here we go again.

Do you believe that every penny the players of certain other clubs receive is paid by the club?

If you DO, do you believe those clubs are able to sign players - especially overseas ones - on salaries well below the market rate?

If you do NOT, do you instead believe that a club in our position has the same scope to aqcuire players who have somehow managed to secure significant external funding as clubs with a much better record of recent success and (by pure coincidence, no doubt) a wealthy owner?

We come back to the earlier argument - how, other than driving the club into administration and making an offer to the administrator (surely no fresponsible shareholder would seek to do that...?), do you secure the change of ownership of the club that you say is necessary, given the current structure of the shareholdings?

And the (practicable ) answer is...?

and sacking the board is magically going to cure that is it?

I don't know any of that and I don't think Mr Moran/Leneghan/Davey is running his books past you either. There's something weird going on here to be honest. Despite a raise in income levels from the pledge we have a situation where a good player becomes availabale and I suggest we sign him. Straight away 2 prolific posters poo poo the idea that we have any chance of signing him. This is not the board lowering expectations but posters on here pusposefully pouring cold water on any ambition whatsoever. Why? If we don't sign him fair enough but why the near hysterical pounce to sidetrack any expectation of success.

On the last point, it is you who constantly roll out the 'what do you expect...' mantra as if the board is there to mow the grass and little else. Bennett has brought money in to the club and I suggest they spend it, that is all. Furthermore, where does it say that a club goes into administration if the BOD resigns?

And then to respond with 'Here we go'. I'm sorry if I'm getting on your nerves - maybe a detention?

Signing Trent Waterhouse - I told you about 10 posts back

30 lines at least, for sure.

Whilst no-one has sought to "poo poo" the chances of signing him, OK you have a point in that it is perhaps too easy to assume that we won't get a look in. That should not be taken as a given, since that is tantamount to throwing in the towel. Equally, though, there are clearly some harsh financial realities out there, and to assume that the board is NOT making a play for such marquee players as Waterhouse (as you seem to be) is probably (IMO) doing them a dis-service.

Don't forget that agents throw around names of other clubs that "might" be interested just to try and bid the player's value up? And what you'll likely never know is whether we DID make approaches, but were either too far out on the asking price or were not the club the player wanted to join. If, for instance, we are in a position to offer a player £200k p.a. (and that is nearly TWICE the "top" value Phil Clarke used in his piece recently to try and show how a team could be built within the cap) then that is about AUD 300k. Let us say that is what several other clubs offer him too, recognising that they have no more cap space free. Yet we see FAR higher figures for annual packages being regularly referred to in the Aussie media. So if the player wants AUD 500k (say) and if his agent tells him that if he signs for xyz club he can get him an image rights deal with some Bermudan-registered outfit he has never heard of (just by way of example) for AUD 200k on top of the £200k, what does the player do?

Niot trying to patronise you, just suggest that it is not impossibel that we ARE trying to secure such signings, but - for whatever reason - lack the financial and/or prestige clout to do so. And I suggest a player is likely to want more anyway for signing for an underperforming club, since he will enjoy his game less, be expected to do proportionately more of the work and have much less chance of winning titles?

Regarding the bringing the money in...I rather suspect that what has been brought in was enough to keep the club going without the need for further big injections from shareholders probably unwilling or unable to commit the sort of sums necessary? I do not for one minute think we are suddenly overflowing with riches, as the next set of publsihed accounts will IMO surely show. We have bought some time, I suspect. But we are again in the catch-22 of needing to perform ON the park to take the presssure off OFF the park. And yet we need the latter to help facilitate the former.

You suggest sack the board. I have previously said that all that would lead to is the same old faces again in the boardroom. Unless enough of the shareholders agree to sell out - and they have a majority so they can ensure the board registers the share transfers - what is the solution?

As for the Administration point, I never said or suggested that would be the consequence if the BOD resigned. I said it would be a way of securing a change of ownership. Maybe someone considered that in the past, who can know? But, again, a majority of the shareholders would have to be behind that to make it happen, and if they did it deliberately they would face being personally liable for the company's debts. As well as probably doing very severe damage to the club, especially since the Council could then repossess Odsal and sell it for development. So again, what is the solution?

I have seen you call for the BOD to resign, and for the shareholders to appoint a new board presumably. But the shareholders can do that at ANY TIME - just convene an EGM and, if they have the majority, sack the board and appoint - themselves again??? Good move, that...

I can offer no practicable solution following your route. Can you?