I can see why
ratchford, Houldsworh and Patten have the most handling erros as they in effect along with the hooker touch the ball the most being our creative players. I think that Marriot is unlucky he hasn't had another oppertunity as when we saw him he for me did everything right and lookede full of go forward and willingness to really get stuck in. Same as Clay who for me looks a very good prospect and the sort of build that should he not make it as a winger other positiuons might suit him.
I personally think as I said before the start of the season that Neal is a brilliant buy for the club and should maybe be used more as he looks tireless. Also think the tactic of starting with Feka looks a better option as despite his failings he will tire opposition forwards out with his bulk when they are trying to haul him down (though the lobbing it backwards and call it an off load we saw from him on Friday is very dangerous in the wrong areas of the pitch) and I also think that big Ray should do the last 20 of the first hald and say the first 10 of the sencond for Feka to come back on for 10 and Ray again for the last 20. The rest of the younger props should be able to cover between them the rest of the time.

On the subject of motivation I think that maybe Feka being on from the start should be used as motivation, let's be honest if we reveive the kick off and send him steaming forward in the way Martin Lange for Cronulla used to do it will gee the players up and get the shed baying for more.

Then he's clearly worried that he'd be one of the players whose skill level or commitment would fall below the required standard in which case you would not want them anyway.

At the moment we've got players who seem comfortable on the contracts they've got without having to make sure they keep putting in each week.

Where are all these players going to go? There are only so many clubs that a player could sign for.

The benefit may be that it deters some of those who think they can come to Salford for an easy 2-3 years. You don't have to set the target too high. One place higher than the previous year would do (based on a table without points deductions) until the standard is raised where the target is at least the top 8.

MOZZA

sadly not available [size(until Wire have removed all he could do)[/size

No. He's worried that the other players in the squad aren't top 8 material and that he'll lose his job through no fault of his own. Imagine Salford put an offer in today to, say, Kevin Sinfield, but with your 'must finish in the top 8' idea in the contract. Kevin, as we all know, is desperate to sign, but what does he do? He looks at the squad and thinks 'these are borderline top 8 at best. I could end up out of a job after one season. I'll stick with Leeds'. Bye bye Kevin.

It doesn't just deter those who see Salford as an easy ride. It deters everyone.

Why would a player of the calibre of Kevin Sinfield be worried by such a clause. Were Hodgson, Robinson, Korkidas or Finnigan would the season we got relegated. No they either walked straight into other clubs or already had them lined up.

Good committed players should not be worried. Anyone who baulks at such a clause is someone we would not want.

Standards have to be set and performance has to be monitored.

There's a thread on the go at present about Corey Paterson, he's still got 12 months to go at Newcastle Knights but has been told to look elsewhere. Those are the standards we need to aspire too.

Ive said before and ill say it again, we lack control in attack and intensity in defence.

I dont think we are too far away for being a very good side cermented in the top 8 but the players have to be prepared to play for a full 80 mins at the intensity expected for a superlegue team, get organised quicker and make every tackle both in attack and defence count currently we have a very good 20 mins where we challenge teams, 40 mins of average play where its one up rugby with no plans and 20 mins of which can only be described as rubbish where we drop the ball and usually have brain explosions in which we usually lose the game.


Hopefully with the new coach coming in he will take us back to basics and coach the players into using every tackle to maximum potential and we can continue to move in a forward direction

A player of Kevin Sinfield could walk into any club. So what attracts him to the one that threatens to terminate his contract after one season? What stops him thinking "this squad isn't good enough. Why join Salford - who will lilkely bin me after one year - when I could get a guaranteed three year deal elsewhere?"

You mentioned Sinfield, to attract him we'd need to be offering substantially more money in the first place! As you point out he could easily go elsewhere.

The club need to come up with fresh ideas to manage performance. What we have currently is not working.

Guaranteed deals are not bringing the level of performance need in all cases.

Ocker v Red John

Jeremy Kyle

Thursday 9:30

"I just can't see how he's talking sense"

Indeed. Salford would have to offer substantially more money to [iany[/i player to get them to accept a flaky contract that could see them binned after one season over a guaranteed two or three year deal at another club. Can the club afford this? Even if we could, your idea causes problems. Let's imagine Salford are taken over by Sheik Yarbouti, and he pumps billions of pounds into the club. The salary cap means we can only spend a certain amount. Because of your 'potentially binned after one season' idea, the club has to offer players more money. So the number of players they can afford drops, the squad gets thinner, the chances of finishing outside the top 8 increases, so the chances of a player getting, effectively, sacked increases. It would take a special player (one who couldn't get a place anywhere else) to accept those terms.



Agreed, but I don't think putting a termination clause in the contract is a viable solution. Let's look at another example. Suppose, by some miracle, we have a squad of superstars under your play well or get sacked regime, but get a run of serious injuries and end up with a massively depleted team for most of the season. We finish outside the top 8. So we then release all our best players because there's a clause in their contract that terminates the contract if they finish lower than 8th. Is this a good idea?



Other clubs get by with guaranteed deals. The solution lies elsewhere. Not sure where, but elsewhere.

We're not a million miles away but we need to shift on about 6 players and invest in about 8. League table never lies, so if you're seriously suggesting we're not far off then I'd have a look at the points difference. That will give you an indication of how far off we are.

What we need to deal with is the here and now not some fantasy island suggestion that a rich individual takes over who will pump billions in. In your unrealistice scenario, we would presumably be competing on a level footing with all other clubs paying the full cap and consequently able to go after well motivated players at the top end of the market as opposed to what we are left with now. In such a case a modified approach could be adopted to performance management but that is not where we are.

Your second scenario flies off at an even wilder tangent. If you have a clause that allows you the [sizeOPTION[/size to terminate a contract why would you use it terminate the contracts of the best players? Surely you would release the worst players! Even then in the circumstances you outline, you may not wish to release any because you have clearly articulated the mitigation for the poor performance i.e the run of serious injuries and hence the massively depleted squad.

Perhaps we could ask the Newcastle Knights how they offload players who still a year to go on their contract.

come up with stupid contract ideas, and just carry on and on
meanwhile