I dont agree with this poor recruitment statement. On paper Leeds have a very good squad. They have marquee players.
The issue is not the individuals it’s the lack of team unity.
Could be seen on the pitch yesterday. No leadership and no plan.
Structure is non-existent. Both in attack and defence. They aren’t working for each other. The old heads aren’t used to it and the newbies are finding it difficult to integrate.
Off the cuff stuff works with a team of tight knit players who know each other well. It doesn’t work with a team of individuals.

Giving Sinfield this job was bound to be a failure. He’s inexperienced and had unrealistic expectations on him from day one.
If he wanted to be involved at Leeds he should have started off as assistant. He should have gone elsewhere as Peacock did if he was set on such an executive role.
He’s no one to blame but himself for his failure.

If they had some decent go forward in their pack, many of their problems would be solved (well, up to a point anyway).
They havent been able to win the forward battle in any of their games so far and the Bradford game was a clear example.

Mistakes will always happen but, these become magnified in a losing side and one that is severely lacking in confidence.
Sacking Furner so soon into his tenure was a huge mistake. After all, he had nothing to do with the last few seasons and was only part way through making the squad his own.

It just seemed a crazy decision and should they put another coach in there, mid season, just what is he expected to do.

The fact that they have a couple of marque signings would infer that they are spent up to the cap, or close to it and unless a new coach can quickly get some of the squad out on loan, there wont be much of an opportunity to change the playing roster until the close season.

The irony of Leeds and their reserve side (KR) doing battle with London for the wooden spoon could really spice up the end of season relegation battle.

The Magic fixture has become massive and Ward at London will have had this one in mind since London were promoted.

A couple of observations.

Why was Sinfield sat with Agar and the other coaches ? You don't see Radlinski or Wells do it. Is his role different to that of the usual Director of Rugby ?

I have read on several occasions on these threads that Leeds have an element of "toxic" players they need to get rid of. Who are they ?

I might be wrong, but aren't Radlinski and Wells in more of a 'player welfare' role (the job Agar was originally brought to Leeds to do)?

Not too sure on what Radlinski's role at Wigan is but Wells at Cas Tigers is responsible for recruitment. Andy Lynch has the players welfare role at Cas.

I see two types of Directors of Rugby - The likes of Wells and Radlinski who are not directly involved in coaching and the likes of John Kear when he was at Wakefield and Tony Smith at Warrington - At the end of the day it is just a job title, different clubs will have different expectations and responsibilities for those roles.

Leeds is a Hetherington egotrip, Kath and Agar messed up Hull, now Gary and Richard are messing up Leeds, with Gary already messed up the RFL. The Hetheringtons are not good for RFL.

He has 2 jobs, Rugby General Manager and Executive Director but i don't think he interferes with the coaching set up. Sinfield because he has only retired recently won't be able to break ties with the team just yet and a new coach will always be looking over his shoulder until the club has a complete re build.

I disagree entirely. I think they have a poor squad, and marquee is just a title, it doesn't mean that the players with that status are actually deserving of it.

Look at that side that played last night (yes I know it wasn't full strength) and tell me how many of them would get regular game time for a top side. I support Hull. We have issues of our own and there better teams in this league than us, and yet I'm not sure I would take any of them.

Newman has been their best player in recent times. Now don't get me wrong, he is an exciting prospect and deserves a lot of credit for his performances, but the rest of the players should be embarrassed by that. Outplayed and outworked by a kid that just turned 19 a few months ago.

What a load of rubbish, I am not the biggest Hetherington fan but Gary has built up, re-branded and run the most successful club in the Superleague era, very rarely making the wrong call throughout, not even going into what he has made happen re developing some of the best facilities in the game for his club and now because the team is having a bad run he has messed the club up and is bad for Rugby league?

Also Kath did a great job at Wakefield, steadying the ship for Carter and got us through a rough period in our history and put some foundations in place to get us to be sustainable as a club whilst also helping us out in the short term re signings at the time which were invaluable through her connections in RL. I wont comment on her time at Hull, I know a lot of Hull fans have bad feeling towards her but they have also done a lot of good.

I have no idea why clubs employ former greats in non-playing roles that appear to be based on how good a player they were. They are two completely different skillsets. Michael Carter is doing a great job of running Wakefield but I don't expect to see him at scrum-half on Saturday.

Loving a club and being a certified legend on the field are not necessarily the attributes required to coach/manage the same club. Jimmy Lowes at Bradford and Keiron Cunningham at Saints are another two examples. Forever revered for their service on the pitch but hopelessly out of their depth as first team managers.

"Sir Kev" has a justified hero status with Leeds fans but I'm not sure this was the right gig for him. Perhaps coaching elsewhere and coming back might have worked but he's on a hiding to nothing with this hybrid role, particularly at the club where he's regarded as a Knight.

utter garbage, Hetheringrons are poison. Hence why Fubar still gets a job. The fact SL voted one way and Leeds another. Have you met them, odious individuals.

Well as a fan of a Championship club I'd beg to differ. I'd say Hetherington voted for the good of the game against the majority of SL chairmen who voted for the good of the SL.

I personally find it hard not to agree with Hetherington's reasons for voting the way Leeds did. His argument that clubs were using the RFL and the structure as an easy excuse for their own failures was absolutely on the money. In the main, crowds, sponsorship income and commercial revenue are no better now than they were prior to the split.

It's not particuarly clear what your specific issue with Gary Hetherington is - just a lot of hyperbole.