Please forgive my ignorance here, but if Karl Fitzpatrick has indeed got anything to do with our recruitment, then what exactly are his qualifications for doing so?

From memory, he was a bog standard player, he's never been a successful coach, he's got zero connection with our club, he's basically no more qualified for his job than most of us on here, so how, or why, is he in the position he is in?

By the way, this isn't intended to completely slate him, I'm just genuinely curious how he has got the job he has and, if recruitment is at least partly down to him, why we have chose to give him such responsibility when he appears to have little qualification for it.

Yes the Salford recruitment model, and the Castleford model in Powell's early years are examples to look at.

These clubs seem to pick up players from other clubs that seem like they are so-so and then take them to a much higher level than they had reached before.

Warrington take players who have reached a higher level at other clubs and then take them to becoming so-so with us.

Ratchford and Hill being the exceptions
Cooper has returned a better player

Daryl Clark has continued his MoS level

Charnley and Lineham have neither regressed or progressed

But then

Gelling CAN look devastating, it's just when he can be bothered
Our halves look nowhere near [imarquee level[/i
If Jason Clark was supposed to be some kind of NRL Colossus, I'll show my bottom in Bridge St.
BMM and Akuaola are merely thinner versions of Danny Lima, with greater stamina levels
Hughes is just Hughes

Then there's the ones we've let go
Our two YouTube sensations
Roberts. (don't get me started)
Sandow Flaky (at times) but with errrr.... issues

Westerman.... see Hughes/Jason Clark

Then there's the "experiments"
Bailey, Wheeler, Cox etc

Our recruitment is a lot more miss than hit

Thought this many a time ,successful teams help themselves by bending rules to nth degree.

I broadly agree with lefty's list, but Lineham I think has bucked the trend. He was a 'typical Wire' player, before we signed him. Someone who looked like he had talent but flattered to deceive and frustrated the Hull fans. Then with us, after his first year or so, he became a more reliable performer, who shows up in big games, like the kind of player we usually sign and then make worse with us.

If anything Charnley has regressed, after a good start with us, but I find him hard to assess. He hasn't looked like a bad player, he's just become more peripheral, which may be more due to the rest of the team than him.

Westerman was a classic Wire signing if ever there was one.

Kevin Brown was another who underachieved with us compared to what he had been doing with Hudds and Widnes, although when he was out through injury, we missed him. Him and Kurt Gidley fall in the category of players who would have been good to sign a few years earlier, because they had a good attitude but were just past their best physically/had injury problems when they joined us. A younger Kurt Gidley could have been an Aussie version of Simon Grix.

Fair comments, sally
Lineham just let's himself down with his appalling discipline
Charnley's [iedge[/i has been blunted by his overuse as a battering ram, thus tiring himself out (to some extent)
Brown I'd forgotten about. Enjoying an [iIndian summer[/i to his career, but never really did anything for us
Forgotten about Gidley, too. All guns blazing for his first couple of months. After that, little shown/age catching up with him