Cullen never, ever, addressed this. He said in a 2002 ST meeting "If you think it's bad now [drinking culture] you should have seen it in the 80's"*. I knew then he was too close to the players and going about it all wrong. I also said he was coaching at the biggest club he ever would. Sadly true. Still I'll remember him now as a legend centre/SR rather than an "Emperors Clothes" coach.

*He also said "Warren Stevens was the best player in the lower leagues by a mile" hence the signing.

I'd really like to get to know Tony's methods more although I realise that won't be possible.

For example did he come in and stamp his authority and put an end to the drinking culture (assuming we had one) by laying down a hard and fast rule about it immediately.

Or did he come and just start tweaking the culture at the club. Did it get to the point where the players made what they thought was a conscious choice to be more professional in that aspect as if they didn't they wouldn't be in line with the wider professional culture at the club?

Maybe binning Gleeson was better than actually making a statement.

Yeah maybe. Again we are making assumptions based of rumour. May be it happened like Cat said? Who knows.

I know a lad that's worked in a favourite 'bar' of our players. He says they used to come out as one a few years back, but since Smith has come in he's stopped them going out in 'packs', instead they only go out in small quantities.

He also says you won't see any of them out before games and stuff, which used to be a regularity 'apparently'.

I imagine Smith just came in and started to see the things that were ignored under previous 'regimes', the changes were obvious, him actually being a fantastic coach is just a bonus.

The odd thing with this is Cullen was not a weak character. He was not afraid to lay down the law with other people at the club, media etc. But he did not enforce strict discipline on the players in the way that Tony Smith has done.

I suspect it all comes down to respect and the power balance between a coach and his players, which is always there, unspoken or not. Jack Gibson said the most important thing a coach could have is respect, but it is either there or it isn't, and if it isn't there is no way you can command respect just by coming over as tough.

Our better players like Gleeson and Briers, had more power than Cullen and they knew it, if he had tried to bring in a regime they hadn't accepted he would have had no chance, he would have 'lost the dressing room'. So he had to keep them onside. Tony Smith came in with two Super League titles and a World Club Challenge on his CV so he had power and respect from the start and this gave him licence to create a harsher regime and have it accepted by the players.

This sort of situation happens a lot in football. You hear about managers that are ousted by player power because the players don't agree with their methods. Andre Villas Boas was a classic example at Chelsea, all the senior players came out against him, they didn't like his strict training methods etc. But Jose Mourinho had them training ruthlessly hard and they accepted it from him. The difference was Mourinho had the Champions League on his CV with Porto, whereas AVB was the same age as his senior players, had never played professional football, and they had seen him as a junior a few years back when he was one of Jose's research assistants. Jose can make players do things that AVB can't, in the same way that at City Mancini can make players do things that Mark Hughes couldn't.

Interestingly even Brian Smith has fallen foul of this in recent years. Like Tony he is well known for being a disciplinarian but whereas in the early part of his career he was regarded as a coaching guru, the lack of a Grand Final win has damaged him and when he takes over a club you hear senior players grumble (made worse by the fact the press actively go hunting for it) because they don't like his strictness and without a Grand Final win on his CV maybe he isn't big enough to hold that respect over guys like Jamie Lyon and Andrew Johns.

The one coach that had the power to come in to his first job and rule with an iron fist without having achieved anything in coaching before was Ellery Hanley at Saints. But that's because it's Ellery Hanley.

rlThisrl.

Massive day in the history of the club.

I may be misremembering this but, in Barrie McDermott's book (which is excellent by the way, certainly compared to the likes of Long and Stankevitch) he tells a story about how, after matches, they used to go for beers. Apparently Smith suggested (didn't instruct) that they go for either a meal as a team or a swim. Apparently they still do it to this day.

Also recall Smith admonishing Adam Neal when Neal suggested at a forum that he wasn't part of the team as he was injured. Smith corrected him and said he was a very important part of the team and could contribute in other ways if he wasn't in the squad.

To pick up on another theme - going from assistant to coach rarely works. You go from being the players best mate, listening to them bitch about the coach to being the bloke who decides if they have a job, or whether they have to move house etc. Can't be too close to people so that they resent it when you make tough decisions.

Who is more important to you - Tony Smith or Simon Moran?

I would think him putting his hand into his pocket has been the biggest turning point you have had. You've still got the best coach in the league mind.

Simon Moran is vital, we all know it, but Smith has been the only one to bring it all together. Cullen couldn't manage it and Lowes couldn't despite an embarassment of riches.

That nearly made me laugh out loud! A few people will know why you posting that is funny!

Simon Moran.

Tony will move on at some point and we'll have to find another coach. There are other coaches out there and emerging all the time. If we are smart we might get one as good as Tony. Should Simon decide to move on though, there aren't other wealthy people like him queuing up to take over RL clubs so unconditionally and with so much passion for it. Look at the Bradford debacle.

I know enough about some of the things he did that prove it wasn't a case of culture tweaking or left to conscious choice. He put in some very hard and fast rules!

Notable that from that May 2009 HRK game we still have 11 of those players that make up our regular 19 man squad.

Agree - Simon Moran.

However are we as reliant on him financially as some think? He isn't funding losses at the club out of his own pocket because with his and others influence it runs on a relatively equal footing.

I guess the point a I am trying to make is that if he did move on it would be loss but with what he (and others again) have built it wouldn't start unravelling like at Bradford.