That pass was so far forward, he'd go well in the NFL! Even so, he was certainly a handful and tough to put down.

No, you don't Mike.

But any fool can play hell about what they believe is wrong. The way to rise above the fools is to put forward a solution. I'm sure you would not want to be seem merely as a whinging fool (which I know you are not), but instead as someone with a constructive suggestion? Since you are so strongly opposed to Hood, I felt sure that you must have a candidate in mind who is ready, willing and able to take over the reins? If you don't, then would you have us run with no leader at all? After all, from your service days I'm sure you'd agree that the only thing worse than bad leadership is no leadership at all?

My own constructive suggestion is that we need a sugar daddy desperately. But I do not know of anyone ready, willing and able to take on that mantle. Without that, therefore, we have to play the cards we are dealt.

And Like Adey said

Come on? Come on? I'm sick of you saying Hood out etc without any foundation or logical solution on who'd take over.. Come on! Let's hear your masterplan. Does it involve selling Kearney by any chance?

I suspect Snowie was impressed with his potential. Tom isn't anywhere near the finished article, his ball control is one area of a few that he needs to work on.

It has been a pretty good 1st season for Tom though in a tough position for such a young guy. I thought one of his knock on was a clear strip that the officials missed and he had a pretty decent game. Certainly our most destructive runner on the night.

How can he come up with a possible candidate when he doesn't (I'm guessing) hold any of the shares? I actually feel sorry for Hood. He's been left holding the baby by a dysfunctional group of shareholders who are neither prepared to support him or remove him. Whilst his management of the balance sheet has been excellent, his management of the playing side is a disaster and it's not whinging to say so.

I take your point about no leadership but I think the only way to way to halt the momentum of decline is for him to resign and force the shareholders to face up to the issue.

I don't think anyone else who DOES hold any of the shares has an answer though, do you? That is the problem. Any solution to the shareholding impasse IMO is likely to come from someone from outside, with a big chequebook to buy out a majority of the existing holders. Would you not agree?

But my point to Mike remains[isymptoms[/i of things having been badly wrong. Even if we do not all necessarily agree as to the [icauses[/i. Indeed, I doubt any of us who post on here will have a clear enough understanding of ALL of the causes to be able to provide a fully-objective proposed solution. I know I cannot. But what is the solution?

This goes out to anyone who is understandably playing hell at our current plight: OK, the symptoms are plain to see; we can all guess at the probable causes. Some of us may even be nearly right. But what realistic solution can you put forward, beyond simply "sacking" those you hold responsible?

At least you have proposed a possible way of resolving one of the big issues we face - potentially the most significant one, even - albeit something of a nuclear option. I'd feel a lot happier if all those who say "sack" Hood/Hood should stand down" would give us some idea of who they would set up in his place - and how they would set about it? You are, to my knowledge, so far the only one to have suggested a practicable, if (I am sure we would both agree) far from ideal, approach. One that would certainly achieve a result - but what that result would be is far from foreseeable? Maybe the time has indeed come to bet the future of the club on a pair of fives, but it would be a high-risk strategy for sure? What is for sure, I suggest, is that things cannot go on as they are.

But pretty well everyone else who wants Hood to go appears to think someone far better will magically appear in his place!

There is an old saying I'm sure you know - "a good biggun will always beat a good smallen". Most players have a key ingredient to their game - Burgess is clearly power and strength combined with decent speed. However all players must have core skills. I've seen players of his age who are no better so I'm not just bagging him. He has another couple of seasons to get those skills and then and only then should we really be impressed - that IMHO applies to all players though it doesn't seem to be the British way where we over hype players far to soon - see Westerman who is now a good two years behind where he should be. Gets the fundamentals right though and Burgess will be world class - fingers crossed.

Snowie is a good lad but I think he needed a bit of perspective - as well as we played last night we are not the best team to gauge players against - if there is one team in SL that size is an advantage to the opposition it's us - Gledhill and Amor who propped for us would make one Burgess! Whilst our centres and wingers were tiny or kids or both. No wonder that man boy had a field day. Prospects are many, finished product is in short supply.

i dont have a solution chaps. im just saying il be glad when hes gone because hes been a disaster.

Please clarify WHY he's been a disaster. Is it because he signed a player who had an agreement to go back to another club when returning from rugby union and caused a long term financial hamstringing of the club and lead to the loss of several of our top stars due to lack of funds to give them improved deals or allowed them to play in their prefered position?
Oh wait, that was Caisley who turned tail and ran for the hills when it became clear the club were going to get screwed on the deal.

Hood has taken a club that was circling the drain financially and turned us round to where we might not be making huge profits but at least we're not reliant on the largesse of a chairman to survive (something pointed out on the rfl's licence summaries about several other clubs in SL). That's something that's been long discussed on here.

There was also the reshuffle of the board earlier this year, which several people have forgotten about or seemed to. It was something that needed doing as stream lined several board room process, not least of which was signings which I believe had in the past caused us to miss out on players due to not all the board being available for meetings or to give their vote to agree on the signing of players.

I personally don't think Peter Hood should go at present because there is simply NO-ONE around at present to replace him with. IF, and it's a large if. In fact, if you got a moment, it's a twelve-storey if with a magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24-hour portage, and an enormous sign on the roof, saying 'This Is a Large If' we manage to get a sugar daddy then at that point perhaps Hood should step down dependant on who the new boss fella was bringing in.

I know there are some on here who like to blame Peter Hood for our current situation, but really all he's to blame for is the fact we still have a club to support.

Trouble is, there are some who refuse to recognise the financial realities regardless. The type that if they had set their minds on the earth being flat, nothing whatsoever you could say or do or prove would shift them. Its like on the Sin Bin, where the ruling elite are consistently in denial of financial and other inconvenient truths that are staring them in the face. You waste your time trying to explain.

I really wish that, at some fans' forum, Hood could stand up and tell everyone exactly how it was and how it is. Without having to worry about non-disclosure agreements and privacy rules and causing problems for the RFL and heaven knows what other constraints including worrying about the effect his words might have on people dealing with the club. And in such a way that it was plain (even to the flat-earthers) that he was speaking the truth. Then at least folk might have a better understanding of where we are today, and of what mistakes CAN be laid at his door and that of the current board, and what for what issues they are blameless.

You could always email that as a question to Stuart Duffy.

I think, to be fair, most fans would be happy with the truth. It's the fact that a lot feel they getting the wool pulled over their eyes that's hurts.

Hold on

Caisley - solicitor who could read a legal contract. who could not read a balance sheet, or a rule book? he did some great things at bradford do not get me wrong but he got overexcited and did things too soon that were out of our budget.

Noble - encouraged to sign a player that would cause a mess. let us lose said players either because he was no good at nurturing kids or did not rate them.... bridge,atkins just two who did not get a chance under him. people forget the horrendous run that we went on before the incredible run to the 2005 final. what about mcnamara signing bai and mckenna because 2006 nobby had not got anything to replace all his escaping stars.... nobby could motivate established stars but could not see when to get rid or refresh his squad with youth. there will have been new coaches at at least four sl clubs why has he not taken one or been offered one? he needs money and lots of it. we had already won titles before he came and had players of the calibre of deacon,paul,peacock,fielden,lowes, forshaw, withers, anderson, mcdermott,pryce we were not lacking in talent when he took over.... vagana, hape and lesley were signings not without talent but pretty much established players. I do not doubt he still had work to do and did do some good things but he is part of the reason we are in a mess. He lacked the vision of a few years down the line and only concentrated on the now - harris is the greatest example of that.


Hood oh yeah lets blame it all on him.. he has tried to sign some potentially world class players bird, orford he has signed menzies and not broken the bank with these....

Dom, that's not a bad post mate.

I say I'd take issue with Caisley being able to read a contract - Mr Justice Gray showed him that in fact he could not, I suggest? So much that went tìts up here is down to that ruling - which, in short, was that a restraint of trade can be valid in certain circumstances. Knowing what we know now, it looks to me like Caisley bet the club on a pair of fives, and lost. And I disagree that Caisley could not read a balance sheet - I'm sure he can, and knew full well where we were heading.

Your last paragraph is quite telling though. Its not as if Hood has not tried to sign players to turn the club round. And at least we had the privilege of watching the Beaver in a Bulls shirt.