I think this story on the BBC will potentially put off future applicants as it sounds like the board want a 'hands-on' approach going forward?

For a group of businessmen ,they don't seem to place a lot of importance on providing a product that will attract paying customers. Very poor if it is the board that has cocked up.

Could it be a genuine case of trying too hard? Blamed for apparent interfering, blamed for letting Karl loose with the chequebook, blamed for giving an experienced coach cart blanche and backing him in trying to change our culture.

Admittedly things haven't always gone as we/they would hope, mistakes have been made BUT 'shirley' we can't accuse them of not caring or trying to find a way for us to succeed and provide us with a team to be proud off, something we can get behind.

The search continues....

In my book, as Chairman and CEO you always hold yourself accountable, and take ownership for it. And that means publicly taking the flak when things go wrong. That's the difference between a true leader, and a simple 'manager'.

I like Middleton's passion and commitment, but I can't help feeling he should be stepping back and letting someone else steer this ship with his financial input, delegating to a proven CEO with no sentimental connection.

Since taking the reins, he's thrown the players under the bus first, then thrown Powell under the bus.

I'm absolutely indebted and hugely grateful for the amount of money he commits to the club, but a leader he is not, in my humble opinion.

I feel the public hanging, drawing and quartering of Powell serves no purpose other than to attempt to deflect criticism from the board of directors. They have made some repeated poor decisions now affecting the last 3 coaches.

Result = 1 pot in 10 seasons and counting ...


Tony Smith - in role too long. Should have gone after losing the first 6 games of 2017 and failing in the 3rd GF.

Steve Price - in role too long by by 2 years (should have gone when we blew out of the playoffs in 2019)

Daryl Powell - wrong fit - un moderated wrecking ball according to Middleton.


* If we had acted when we should have with Smith, we potentially could have had Holbrook before Saints. Instead we got Price 6 months later.

What are the board looking for though? What is the job spec and key defining attributes that they are looking for in order to know they have the right person next time?

I said the same at Powell’s appointment. We have flip flopped from overload attacking with Smith, to park the bus Price, to what was allegedly a “promote from within and develop the players we have” in Powell.

It’s been said a million times, but we don’t know what club we are. We’re “new money”. We have no etiquette, no legacy. We’re just buying the latest brand of fashion, which as fashion does, goes out of style as fast as it arrives. Saints are the complete contrast. They play the same way they have since the 90’s, and all the coach has to do is keep the engine ticking over and steer it in the right direction. There’s no rebuild, it’s just tinkering,

The club now need to map out the blue print, find out what good actually looks like, before appointing a coach. If that take 7 weeks, and Chambers and Marshall have a free hit at making a name for themselves, so be it. But we can’t get this wrong, and without knowing what you actually want, you’re just speculating again.

What I've really disliked about both Powell and price is that we have seen the team go on a good winning run playing aggressive rugby with some good expansive play and a great defensive line speed. We then lose a game and both coaches tried to go Conservative to get us back on track by grinding out a a win, totally abandoning what we were doing well to get the earlier wins.

Then after a few more narrow losses the team confidence is totally gone and they look like they've forgotten each others names and how to play rugby. We need a coach who doesn't bottle it and carries on playing the manner that has brought us success. We have looked like a team that is overcoached far too often, for far too long. The players don't look like they enjoy their trade and they really should, it's a great sport, we are a good club with great facilities and have a big fan base which is totally fed up and just desperate to have a team they can get behind.

Get this group enjoying rugby, simplify things, let them use and trust their abilities (drop mata'utia) and the results will come.

Like it. Perhaps get a quality Director of Rugby onboard and let them feed into the discussion and become part of the recruitment process. Even Wane on a short term consultancy basis to give some independent RL org advice into the board.

The thought of the Chancer feverishly whatsapp'ing everyone in his black book and the Chairman tearing across NSW and Queensland in his limo fills me with dread.

He he. I have an image in my head of the CEO driving down the East coast of Australia in a van decorated like a furry dog with a suitcase full of cash.
Unfair, I know.

I’m afraid you’re buying into the “entertainers” hype. When did they last play an entertaining brand of rugby? They thrive, and have done for years now on a supersonically fast defensive line targeting the ptb and 2 out. The only entertaining player they have is Welsby who definitely has star quality to go with his totally unsympathetic character.
Our board are desperate for success, they clearly feel the lack of that elusive title as well as we do. Where we have failed, and Saints have succeeded is in spotting talent especially coaching talent (obviously Cunningham was a delightful blip). But they brought in Millard, Holbrook and Woolf Anderson etc. We have gone for safer choices like Powell or close but no medal Price. The only one we got right in recent history was Smith and that was so close but no cigar.
So talent spotting coaching talent has been our big failure.
I also wonder how much importance we have put on character when recruiting. Judging by comments before he got here Maguire was potentially always a problem.

I agree, I was referring to their strength being a big front row, hooker who’s first thought is to run and playing off the back of that.

Surely defence is a priority. Stop the opposition from scoring and try to score a few ourselves. Might not be pretty, but that's what will get us wins and trophies.
I don't know what Sheriden has been doing since he arrived, he's been stealing a living.
I would like to see solid, no mistakes, defensive performances before we start throwing the ball around wildly. I'm sick of us making things easy to the opposition with unforced errors.
Winning is everything.

I was in agreement with Barbed Wire up to the point of suggesting Saints have played the same way since the 90's. As Captain Hook suggests, they haven't played like that for years. What they have done is modify their game to suit with quick line speed and very dominant defence. They then grind you down for long periods and poach a couple of tries in the last quarter of the game. Quite a fair few of their fans don't like this method that Woolf created but it worked and won them GFs so could hardly be argued with. Wigan have also played this kind of way and it could be said they were the architects of this back under Mcguire with the slow ruck speed. When you watch games pre 2010 or even earlier in the 90's it is much more free flowing and the play the ball is a lot quicker. Maybe defence is a bit loose but that was one of the trade offs.
What our identity is i have no idea. Briers referred to this on a pod cast last year saying Warrington still haven't worked out what their identity is yet.

I would like to see this also. But the plan kinda whiffs of the Price era that everybody has nightmares over.

Stand to be corrected here but did Tony Smith one time say he was mostly concerned with the defence and attack will take care of itself or something to that effect.