Fella Sorry if I wasn't clear, I wasn't having a pop at you or JJ as I agree with much of what has been said and respect your opinions on here (and elsewhere
I am in no way a Simms hater as some are, however, you can see why a lot of people chose to target Steve when the team don't perform.

If Simms, as I believe he is, is more of an administrator for the club, concluding deals, targeting players etc then he really needs to distance himself from the playing/coaching side of things. Since KH days we see Simms walking across the pitch at HT to go into the change room. How can people not associate him with the coaching side of things when you see that happening? This season is a given that he'll be there due to the circumstances but it hasn't always been the case.

I've heard lots of positive thing's said about SS from Wilky and you cannot ignore our chairman if he says that SS is invaluable to him. I just wish that there wasn't any grey area in his role and he stayed in the stand and distanced himself a little.'"

My serious advice would be to see what Leigh RL have done since moving grounds and do the exact opposite wherever possible

Tremendous post King of the Shed, I agree entirely. It's also true that we haven't signed nearly as many donkeys over the last few years as we did at the end of the 90's early 00's.

If you've got a limited a budget you tend to get players who are either solid (as opposed to great) or, for want of a better word, flashy (moments of brilliance but prone to lots of costly mistakes). In recent time we've tended to go for more solid players which has given us more stability but less excitement than in the old days when we signed less consistent players. It's then up to the coach to get the best out of them. That's where we've struggled since Harrison's great year.

CC no 1 fan - I seem to remember Mcrae saying about being stuck with players early in his salford stint when it wasn't his team and later with regard to the finances available meaning that only certain types of players were available to him. Maybe excuses but I think there was something in it.

I don't blame Mcrae for us not becoming a great team but I do think that his attitude meant we weren't as good as we could have been. He seemed to be telling the players that they were playing as well as they could and they just weren't good enough rather than being able to get them to perform beyond their individual abilities

As for the original post, I think there are some valid concerns expressed but I don't agree with the overall theme. I think make or break situations are extremely few and far between. Look how long Huddersfield were in their fabulous stadium before they became a team consistently on the top half of the SL table with a growing fan base. Admittedly it was lower profile with them as they were in the lower division when they moved in but i think the point still stands

There does seem to be a culture at Salford that survival in the top division is enough. I actually think that this is, in many ways, absolutely true. Bigger clubs than us have disappeared/struggled far more than us over the last twenty years so to be in there fighting for a licence to stay as one of the top 30 RL teams in the world is a massive achievement in and of itself. But we need to change the attitude to be one that postpones reality and makes out that we can be a truly top team - change the mindset and the culture, work hard at sustaining it and the rest should follow......

That soapbox appears to be getting passed around a lot on this thread!!

Excellent post. Especially the large font paragraph.

I had to ask the question because, as already touched upon, it had different interpretations. I'm quite sure the head coach is in control of everything to do with picking the team, forming the plays and what not. Of course, Simms is entitled to an opinion just as we all are. Being a man of some experience in the area of coaching, he may actually be asked for an opinion by the coaches themselves.

Look at Ratchford for proof. He was very much on the outs under McRae; you guess Shaun didn't rate him. Yet he's a regular under Veivers. Both coaches under the stewardship of the same man but with differing opinions that were reflected on the team sheet. So it's fair to conclude that any inclination by Simms's to stick his oar in is probably minimal. Some ex-players, ex-coaches may disagree with this. However, there are probably other reasons to why they are former rather than current.





I agree that it would placate some fans if he didn't go in the changing rooms at half-time because it does suggest involvement in team matters. Again, he may be asked by the coach to offer insights and encouragement. The board may insist on it - they may want to know what goes on in there given the let downs they have had in the past. He could, therefore, be somewhat of a spy. An onlooker. An observer. We really don't know do we?



This is the other interpretation. I doubt that the majority of head coaches in rugby league have total control of who they sign. This isn't Manchester United and Alex Ferguson we're talking about here. I doubt many head coaches at Super League level say to their club's board 'I want [iplayer x[/i, make sure it happens'. He was probably given a list of players whose agents were sounded out, who were available and showed some interest in coming to Salford. The list may have been compiled by various people at the club. The head coach then may choose who he thinks could fit in. This isn't full control.



Yes. Same as in all sports including football; including Fergie.

We need to demonstrate things have changed with the new stadium. I sometimes thing we aren't good enough at making the noises other teams do.

We have just signed a good french kid but for reading forums would you know?

I believe Alan Hunte is doing a good job but how does this information get past the internet?

The club shop and the rest of the merchandising is an area where an immediate impact can be made. It shouldn't be run by people doing a more "important" job it should be their focus. Some will remember the days when Chris took over, the shop should become a place where fans go to discuss the games, pick up information, be part of the Salford Family. I hope something better is planned for the stadium. What about a kids corner or something more than the Xmas party.

As for the playing side, lets have a captain who is a leader. A Coach who talks up the team and players not make stupid statements to the press such as "I don't know what the problem is"

We need a buzz, get communities involved spread the word of the "family"

We will all need to do our bit, support the lads not abuse the ref, the other team, or our own players.

Why isn't it full control if the coach gets to choose who he signs from a list of players available and willing to join Salford? If this isn't full control what is?

Let's take a hypothetical scenarioplayer a[/i, [iplayer b[/i and [iplayer c[/i.

[iPlayer d[/i was approached by the negotiations team but they didn't get on with the player's agent, so he wasn't included on the short list. However, the coach loves [iplayer d[/i. He thinks [iplayer d[/i would be a perfect fit into his team. Yet the coach isn't given the option; the coach never even knew he was available.

[iPlayer e[/i was on the original short list but one of the club's executives knows the guy who represents [iplayer c[/i, thinks they can do a good deal, and wants him on the list - at the expense of [iplayer e[/i.

This isn't full control but I bet this happens at most clubs. Full control would be for the coach to go to the board and say 'I would like [iplayer d[/i here next season'.

Quote: Chico "This isn't full control but I bet this happens at most clubs. Full control would be for the coach to go to the board and say 'I would like [iplayer d[/i here next season'.'" I appreciate what you are saying Chico about a coach saying "Sign me him" but would the coach know if the player he wanted was:- 1. Willing to join the club? 2. Affordable and within the budget? The coach will have full access to out of contract players to choose from. www.therugbyscout.com/ I'd hazzard a guess it works something like this:- 1. The coach knows the areas he needs to improve and then selects a first, second and third choice for each position he's looking to strengthen. 2. The club will then make the enquiries with players and their agents and report back to the coach on who will come and what money they want. 3. The Coach may then have some tough decisions to make to work within the budget. For instance if I sign that prop and that winger we can't afford that centre etc. It's easy for any coach to say sign me that player but it's surely not as easy as that.

Quote: Chico "This isn't full control but I bet this happens at most clubs. Full control would be for the coach to go to the board and say 'I would like [iplayer d[/i here next season'.'" I appreciate what you are saying Chico about a coach saying "Sign me him" but would the coach know if the player he wanted was:- 1. Willing to join the club? 2. Affordable and within the budget? The coach will have full access to out of contract players to choose from. www.therugbyscout.com/ I'd hazzard a guess it works something like this:- 1. The coach knows the areas he needs to improve and then selects a first, second and third choice for each position he's looking to strengthen. 2. The club will then make the enquiries with players and their agents and report back to the coach on who will come and what money they want. 3. The Coach may then have some tough decisions to make to work within the budget. For instance if I sign that prop and that winger we can't afford that centre etc. It's easy for any coach to say sign me that player but it's surely not as easy as that.

Chico - I tend to agree with you - the coach makes the final call on who is the best player available and willing to join but doesn't necessarily know the full list to choose from or the reason why out of two possible recruits why we got player a and not player c.

At a well run club i would like to think that the starting point of the negotiating team would be "we need a new (say) prop let's have the coach list who he thinks may be the right person and share with the coach our intelligence about who is available and affordable". From there they draw up a credible short list and there is close liaison between coach and negotiators about how the selection process goes. in that way you hopefully achieve the right balance of improving the playing staff without overly-compromising the club either financially or reputationally

The bigger the power imbalance betwen the executive team and the coach the further from that scenario you get. I can imagine that Ferguson will know every detail of why the pursuit of a player isn't succesful and would crucify anyone who didn't do everything possible to get the right man. I'd imagine that the Chelsea coaches will be far less privy to the detail of negotiations or why you ended up with player Torres instead of a new left back (or whatever).

I reckon modern rugby league clubs are nearer the ideal model that football clubs and than they were in the days of Lindsay at Wigan. I'd probably also include the Snapes at Salford in that latter category, and that prompts the question about whether fans will always consider director interference a bad thing. Reading David Watkins autobiography suggets that the coaching staff knew very little about his signing until after it was a done deal. I guess it depends on the choices made.....

Are we suggesting here that the coach should be given control of the club finances and allowed to spend money the club hasn't got?

Guys, apologies for my lack of response, (been busy working all day). I certainly wasn't playing Devil's Advocate with the original post.
Can I just point out that nowhere in my OP did I mention Steve Simms. I did not intend to start another SS bashing thread. I'm neither a fan nor a hater. However, there are some interesting comments/opinions relating to the man, whom I've no doubt is held in high regard at the club. As already mentioned, I see absolutely no reason for him to be alongside the Head Coach on matchday. I think that situation alone does indeed lead people to believe that he has a say with the team selection/interchanges to some degree.
As for the other points I made, I'm certainly not expecting any silverware to suddenly appear (been watching far too long to expect that), but I'd class success as being ultra competitive in each and every game, home or away, league or cup, with the now customary capitulation a thing of the past.
I know there's a lot to do and a lot of hard work to be done, I just sincerely hope that it all comes together after a really long wait.
Cheers

No - I meant power imbalance in either direction. If the coach has too little say it will (probably) be bad for the playing side, if the coach has too much influence it will (probably) be bad for the business side

I couldn't possible comment