It's open to opinions but surely if you are going to take the time to log on to the internet to start holding court on Salford's 'poor support' you should take the five seconds to actually check what the crowd was? Instead you decided that our fans weren't turning up and Koukash may eventually decide not to bother based on what 'it looked like on TV.' For the record Saints brought around 1,500 which was a fine turnout. Again for the record, Salford's crowds so far have been 205% and 95% up on the same fixtures from last year.

As for the second part of your post on the Manchester Devils - how many times do we have to go down this road. Please let us hear your wisdom on why Salford would get a lot more backing and Koukash wouldn't get people's backs up if we were called Manchester. This should be good.

It would be as successful as trying to rebrand Saints, the Merseyside Saints to get more Liverpool fans!

Two points...

1. I never said the sneering derision was in the tweets. The stuff on Twitter is more infantile points-scoring and self-aggrandisement.
2. Do your own research.

The sneering derision was in an article on the Beeb"There are six teams to work on. The six teams that are there, apart from St Helens, are worried about their financial position and not being able to compete. But let's face it, they can't compete now. They are not spending the salary cap."'"

Of course its about opinions, but the attendance figure is not an OPINION it is a FACT that is vey easy to find online. Our crowds have improved this year without free or vastly reduced tickets being handed out which the club has been heavily reliant on in the past.

Manchester Devils is not a new idea and is usually ill informed comments having a cheap dig at Salford fans who have a proud identity. Why dont you merge with Keighley and re brand as White Rose Rovers.

We have always had a decent academy set up considering our finances. At present there are lads like Walne, Owen and Sneyd plus Fages who came over from France at 16 who could become regulars provided they are given the opportunity. The problem the club has is the lack of local talent. We have a limited pool of local talent and that is including Swinton based Folly Lane. A lot of our sccouting and recruitment is done in areas such as Leigh and Oldham with competition from bigger clubs. The club has development work ongoing in Trafford and Manchester and there is kids in our academy se up from these areas but rugby league is is in the shadow of the football clubs. How do we get Salford kids playing rugby league and wanting to play for their local club. I would suggest a good start is to put a winning team out that is capable of winning trophies. Then the club should be able to sell the game to youngsters in local schools and amateurs clubs. The best young athletes in Salford and the surrounding area wanting to play rugby league would benefit not just the club but the sport.

I wasn't intending to have a dig at Salford if that how it came across i apologise, I was just meaning that as far as I remember since the mid 90's Salford have been thought of a small team but now the Dr wants to turn them into a big team and that's what many do not like even at the RFL, and not renaming the team but if they had been named Manchester right from the start from inception, not the renaming rubbish, teams are named from where they are from that should never change, didn't think I mentioned for them to be renamed but if I did again sorry.

Keighley would never go for that they are much better run than us, we can't get through 2 season without some major catastrophe of some sort.

The insinuation that 6 teams can't see past their own capabilities, and can only vote for what's best for them, as opposed to what they think is best for the sport (as Saints, Huddersfield and hull fc did at least) just because their conclusion doesn't match his, is pretty derogatory.

It's basically saying, I'm right, and you'd agree if you were better - which is derision.

I struggle with how the doc presents himself, and how he constructs arguments. He doesn't leave room for the consideration he's wrong, which, if you can be swayed to his way of thinking, comes across as empassioned and bold, if you disagree with his particular argument, he's like nails on a chalkboard.

He's a salesman that is like marmite......love him or hate him, SOME people are buying and he's running at the best Salford average gate average in SL to date and they are far better than last year.......you don't have to like him or his style and I think he has a lot to learn, but I'd give anything to have had him buy London!
It may end in tears but it won't be boring, that's for sure!

On the topic of buying other clubs marquee player tickets for £200k........he could pick up London broncos and Bradford for that.......the entire clubs that is!

The problem is for me is he's now a salesman trying to play a politicians game. He lacks the subtlety to make a refined argument required for real change in the game, and as a result, comes across as crass, arrogant and snide to those who don't buy into his vision. He needs to understand the opposite side of the argument before he will be able to implement change imo, and I'm not sure he can (owing to his brushing off of the clubs who voted against him as merely looking out for themselves and not the sport - I would challenge him to find anywhere a chairman that doesn't want the game to grow!)

I have uttermost respect for what he has done at Salford - no one can deny his sales ability. If he just stuck to Salford I think I'd find him a lot more likable.

Yet no complaint at the way McManus denigrates the clubs who did vote for it? Including some pretty successful ones with arguably better youth development than Saints?

I think this is what a lot of it comes down to with Koukash. Sadly people would rather anyone new to the sport merely go along with the status quo and leave the proposing of any changes to the usual suspects.

Disagree, it's not necessarily that he's trying to change things, I think he's trying to change the wrong things, and given his personality - and that's what I have trouble with.

Smokey - I don't think it was necessarily right to bring in comparisons to the kaiser - but those "more successful" (that's open to debate) academies also voted away the reserves (a decision which I actually understand, but it was an admission of giving up imo as opposed to forcing clubs to build) - he also never says anything expressly wrong - and he doesn't rule out the total possibility that koukash (or anyone else who voted for the system) are not in the interest of the sport, rather the understanding that now is not the time to bring this rule in.

Of course, I'm naturally going to line up behind McManus, with all he's done for my club means he can do no wrong in my mind. And I imagine it's the same for everyone. Ultimately, I think both koukash and McManus need to shut up about it, and let the rugby do the talking (my fear is neither will)

The issue is that whilst those clubs may have voted to remove the U21's it may not have been because THEY couldnt afford it, nor necessarily entirely because of finances at all.

Its all very well McManus deciding from upon high that [iwe don't need them, we can't afford them and they will sink the very nations which purchased them[/i and then to compare it to the dreadnought race. Thats not his decision to make. What worries me is the fact that the Saints Chairman thinks he is the position to decide for everyone what the game can and cannot afford. It strikes very much of a man who has decided what would be best for his club and extrapolated it to every club, and is quite dismissive of any alternative view point.

Its also disappointing to see him hide behind the developed player exemptions which protect his club and enshrine their position at the top.

And how is this different from what Koukash is doing, exactly?



FTFY.