You may be correct but the conversation seems to give the impression that they were Simms' choice of players as well. As for being SM being inexperienced isn't this also Veivers first head coach role as it was Parish's? And Harrison had only had a short spell at Keighley in the top job beforehand, so it was only McCrae who came with any prior experience as a full time coach and to be honest he has always come accross as a bit of a yes man. It would be likely that, whatever the truth of the situation, Simms' management style will have remained consisitent throughout his time at Salford.

Another, probably more important, argument would be is his role required anyway, especially in these troubled times?

I noticed the following link on another forum and there is no mention of the thoughts of the coach,at the time
rlLINK- What May Have Beenrl

Steve McCormack was different in that he'd spent pretty much his entire non-playing career at Salford (and was, remember, not much older - maybe younger - than some of the senior players we had at that time) whereas the others had been around a bit. Phil Veivers has been on the coaching staff at Wigan and possibly Huddersfield, for example. Karl Harrison had been assistant coach at Bradford.

With regards Steve Simms role, [ievery[/i club will have someone who does those things, sometimes more than one person. Other clubs may have a more RL savvy CEO who could negotiate contracts, for example, or the chairman might do it, or another director might do it, but someone, somewhere will be carrying out those tasks. Removing him from the staff won't make them disappear, so you'd have to find someone else to do them.

So Simms is in a job because nobody else in the boardroom or in the senior staff is competent enough to negoiate a contract or arrange a work visa. Hardly surprising your club is in trouble then. Square pegs and round holes come to mind.