Cheers, that's very helpful. From what we know of such contracts are there not performance clauses, or other potential opt-outs. I'm presuming there is some form of performance review system that is in place. Frankly I'm also surprised to hear he is likely to be on £100k plus, I would have thought an untried coach who was promoted to that position would be on less. I'm also wondering whether appointing someone as Director of Rugby and effectively demoting him (without demoting him contractually), might precipitate his leaving. It doesn't seem impossible to imagine a scenario where we could get him to leave should that be the consensus. I realise a DoR would involve extra cost, but the trade-off between that and falling turnstile revenue must surely be worth consideration?

I'm not suggesting that we should fire the coach, but I dont think his payoff should be the determining factor. I dont think any coach should be fire proof just because it would cost £100k to get rid of them. The impact that the coach can have on the team is just too great for that to be an insurmountable barrier. Even if it meant in the short term sacrificing a couple of squad places eg not replacing Tupou.

As for the back up staff, again that just shouldnt be an issue. I cant see the Bulls recruiting a coach of such standing that he would expect or insist on a mass clear out. Any decent coach would be prepared to work initially with existing staff and, if necessary, replace them gradually.

I don’t think that Bradford are in a financial position to release McBanana which means you’re stuck with know-nowt chancer until his contacts up.

Compound this with a ‘vote of confidence’ (which, as we all know, really means we’re really p*ssed off but can’t do anything about it) from your board and he aint going anywhere for the foreseeable future.

TBH, if we have given this fraud a deal till 2010 then we deserve all we get. Showing no ambition leads to decline.

Lack of ambition really isn't this club's problem. Greetings from the Blue Mountains, btw.

Isn't it? What [iis[/i the problem then?

Lack of money. Isn't it obvious?????

Not to those pursuing a single agenda, who refuse to admit the existence of anything which does not accord with that agenda.

Well if we are that skint it further shows the stupid decision to award a rookie coach a four and a half year deal to be utter folly.

There's no "if" about it Eddie we are skint.

Compared to the more sensible option of someone we couldn't afford?

Well we've had these discussions before and your both telling us your opinion is fact even though it's not what senior management at the club are telling us Hood, Duckett.

The club is not about to go bust tomorrow - that's thanks to the actions taken by the current administration. (although I fear for the future without then OSV though). Nor is it awash with funds, and a very tight ship is needed. When you examine what "senior management" has consistently been telling people, its essentially that. And that's not inconsistent with what Bullseye and I have been saying. Bear in mind that directors have to be very careful what they say and how they express themselves - been there, done that, and its not easy.

But opinion? Leaving aside what we each might have picked up over recent times that is not necessarily in the public domain, and quite apart from when you go up to the club there seems hardly anybody there any more and all the other signs that are plain for all to see, you could maybe go have a good read of the latest (and previous) published accounts. If you work on the basis that those are "fact", then you've got the unequivocal fact you are asking for.

If you don't know how to read, and more importantly interpret, a set of accounts, you could always ask a professional who does, and is pretty experienced and good at it. You might even have come across one who posts on here.