Yes 100% to blame. Any good season needs to be built on a good pre season, he should of put structures and systems in place as well as enhancing skill and tackling levels. The new coaches can not fix it all in 2 weeks.

I plead that SM does not come back. He has just had nearly 3 months off then 3 games in leaves. The head coach supposed to be the rock in any club not 'phoning in sick' and leaving the players up creek without a paddle. Everyone should be pulling in the right direction not going on leave for a 4 week jolly!!!!!!!

Always behind the sticks:

I agree with some of your comments & up to last year probably went along with your argument but not any more. SS as been the common denominator while KH was at the club & SM. I am not saying he his to blame for everything within the club but the club is stale on the pitch, as said three & half years is long enough for SM a lot longer for SS. As is said above we seem to bring the same old player each year looking for the final pay day.
Finally, you say we cannot afford to get rid, I say we cannot afford to keep them?

RG - I'm sorry but I stil fail to see your argument. How has Steve Simms contributed to us being stale on the pitch? Steve was still in post when we made the play-offs in 2005, when we all witnessed (I think) some of the best rugby played at the Willows for many years, I think he was still in post when we got relegated (twice) under two different coaches, he was still in post when we won the Championship GF (twice) under two different coaches and in post when we successfully secured our SL licence, so whilst he's been around we've achieved a fair amount but we've had many setbacks too. However, what's clear to me is that Steve has only ever fleetingly been involved in coaching the first team (usually when a coach has been sacked) and he will likely tell you, if asked, that coaching is not his job - really, he's the HR manager for the playing staff and here's why:

I spoke to Steve for about an hour uninterrupted just after he joined the club and he told me some horror stories about how the club used to operate prior to his arrival, e.g. both Corvo and Carige had been brought to the club on the strength of some montage video footage shipped across from Oz by their agents - they'd looked like world beaters, the club swallowed the lie and paid them ridiculous wages. In the case of Corvo, he'd already been advised by a number of medical experts in Oz that his career was over due to his knee, and to top it all, he even managed to blag the club that his brother was some sort of fitness conditioner when he was no such thing but his agent stipulated that his brother was part of the deal or he wouldn't come. Effectively, the Corvo brothers enjoyed an all expenses paid trip to Europe courtesy of the club. It was Steve Simms that ended that type of practice and it's him that keeps us honest around complying with the salary cap - I repeat, Steve Simms has had, I believe, absolutely no say in who McRae wanted to sign this year unless it meant that we couldn't afford them due to cap constraints, the depth of the clubs pockets (whichever came first) or that a player we had signed could not obtain a visa for whatever reason.

Now, having read that, do you still consider that the club would benefit from dismissing Steve Simms from his role? We'd simply have to replace him with someone else experienced enough to deal with players and their agents. If we have signed crocked players, past their prime, then I lay the blame for that squarely at McRae's door, it was his recommendation, Simms will have considered the budget and then set about hammering out the terms.

Finally, your point about not being able to afford to pay McRae off is an interesting one though, and I dare say that it may be reaching a tipping point - i.e. how much time he has left on his deal counterbalanced against the potential damage being done from not performing in our final season at the Willows (vital if we are to move and build some momentum). I guess the irony is that it will be Steve Simms that will advise JW on the best course of action!

]


I agree with the majority of your comments but to blame McRae (again) for signing crocks can't be right, he might recommend targets he wants but surely the club has a "


I agree with the majority of your comments but to blame McRae (again) for signing crocks can't be right, he might recommend targets he wants but surely the club has a "stringent" medical team that would be able to look at the players fitness. If not, why not? Are we a rich enough club to waste money?

To agree with shed head I think he has highlighted a problem which must be of Simms making.

As you say McRae points at who he wants and then Simms does everything needed then to gain and process the player in to a Salford Player. Therefore it must be Simms who has the responsibility for ensuing that the players have a thorough medical and are fit for purpose. As you say It can't be McRae's fault as he just says which players he wants. Simms is therefore failing in his job capacity to ensure that we take on the right players.

The only thing that would absolve him of any fault would be if he highlighted that he didn't feel the player was ok fitness wise and either McRae or the board overruled him and decided that they would buy the player anyway.

So do the board actually need to take the hit for the mismanagement then relating to the players we have bought in? Are the board knowingly buying crocked players or are they taking them on blindly? I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't want a full report to digest prior to giving the go ahead on where their money will go.

Always behind the sticks

agreeing with me about McRae from what I said in Cardiff

an old coach with very old ideas and no idea how the opposition will play, whereas the opposition know how we will play and the weak areas, thats called good coaching, a game plan to fit the game you are playing in a bespoke plan, not a McRae one size fits none plan.