I'm sorry. I'll see if I can undelete the drubbing Wakefield of all people administered to you and if I missed your better structures, attitude, fitness etc. which I must have done, I'll be sure to come back and agree with you.


I have no problems with Koukash, in the sense that it is indeed his money, and he's choosing to spend it on TGG. It is indeed his toy to play with. But he has made huge mistakes, and IMHO Harris for Noble was one of them. Still think you now have the makings of a competitive squad -whoever is coaching it - but only time can blend it into a proper team, and I hope Koukash realises for your sake that some stability is a key ingredient. Oh, and that chairmen giving public beratings never ends well.

"if I missed your better structures, attitude, fitness etc. which I must have done, I'll be sure to come back and agree with you."

good : watch AGAIN the match on Sky v Leeds or try to get any other match bar Wakefield (agree: poor) or Wigan (team affected by a virus).
That's if you can bother admitting you are wrong.
Only one fan I've spoken to does not feel that serious improvements have come with harris' appointment.
Noble was good at Bradford.

Neither of us can be right or wrong, as neither of us can ever know "what if". It's just an opinion. Even your opinion that Noble was good at Bradford. Start a thread and half the replies will tell you you're an idiot, he's rubbish, he had no Plan B, anybody could have coached that team, they were boring, the style was rubbish, etc. etc.

I've seen the televised games and my point re the Wakey match was that both Salford seem to have gone very much downhill, and that in his comments and demeanour afterwards, Harris was very unimpressive.

Your problem with any "recent improvements" is that however neither of us can say whether similar or better improvements may have been brought about by Noble if not sacked.

What I can say is that getting a shellacking against a poor Wakey side is Harris's most recent achievement, and you have to make excuses for that performance to make your point. I recall that Noble's last game in charge was in many respects your best performance of the year. But hey, it could all just be coincidences!

I only read the title of the thread and a cold shiver ran down my back

Of course, all teams should be judged on one particular performance. Bell-end.

If that's the sum total of your logic, then it doesn't matter what I write here. Your opinion is obviously more valid than someone who watches Salford all the time. It's funny, in that I wouldn't dream of going on another Club's forum or the VT and make obviously ill-judged, illogical assumptions based on little to no evidence. I'd have to be an arrogant of the highest order, or numb as a -stone. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how many RL Legends-in-their-own-lunchtime seem to think that their opinion based on nothing will be received with open arms.

Eh, you can't beat intelligent and civilised debate! Run along now, and come back when you've grown up and grown out of responding to a post about rugby league with puerile abuse, you total embarrassment.

He reminds me of Cellinio at Leeds Utd - other than picking the team and giving a half time talk to the players....oh - wait a minute.

I don't bother reading his mad ramblings any more - it's clear that he knows naff all about the game and will say whatever is on his mind without fully understanding what it is he's talking about. He's a one trick pony who needs a new trick, and fast; as it is, despite his immeasurable wealth, he's becoming a joke.

Bit strange coming from a Wakefield follower about knowing 'naff all about the game'.You lot didn't rate Richard Agar but those running Warrington do - as does your chairman and Mr Carter said some very good things about him.

The Salford one-trick pony has been brilliant,again.Another defeat and he takes the focus.Announces a couple of signings.Hock has assisted and the below-par performance forgotten about while the hard work goes on in the background.

It's usually the Cas lot who fall for it.



Check back after every defeat.There's been a few.

I have literally no idea what you're talking about.

The quality of reply is directly related to the quality of post it's directed at.

If you want civilized debate, you're better off writing something that resembles thought-out and sensible opinion. What you did, was give an opinion based off little knowledge of the subject and based your whole argument on judging a team, it's players, and staff on one performance. Which most sensible people would think to be an ill-informed judgement. As a Salford fan I can see the difference Harris has made in a short time. I can see this because I watch them every week and you don't. So on the basis of evidence, I'm supposed to concede that a one-off opinion like yours is somehow equally valid? When it clearly isn't.

So, you've made a spurious claim, I've responded as to why it's spurious, your counter-argument? Jumping on the form of language used as a way to avoid trying to show how your original point has merit...

...And you call me an embarrassment?

No, you're not getting away with that. The perceived quality of any response is no excuse for descending into abuse.


You misunderstand. My preference is for civilized debate but I don't care what you do. If you post abuse like a puerile halfwit* I can point it out, but if that's the best you do, and it makes you feel clever, hey, crack on! really, I don't care.


A poor straw man, but I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that any post needs to contain a full historical dissection of the team's and individuals' history and record. Don't you?


Then here's a tip: you might in such a case say - for example - "That is an ill-informed judgment, because..." It works quite well.


You aren't supposed to do anything. The only issue we have now focused on seems to be whether you are capable of articulating any response coherently, or whether you choose to descend to abuse.





Very funny! But to remind you, you wrote:

[size=85=#BF0000* "puerile halfwit" - this used above is not abuse, but my accurate assessment that the abuse The Butcher used in the above quotation is, objectively, language "like a puerile halfwit".[/size


I'd be embarrassed if I'd posted that, but vulgar abuse is not, and never will be, a "counter-argument", nor is it conducive to one. It just shows you up.