So a coach takes over more than half way through a season when his predesesor has spent all the money on poor quality players without taking advise from ANYONE, then that same (ex) coach admits to THE PLAYERS that he can't get his ideas out because of his previous illness, that same (ex) coach has already alienated most of the rugby clubs by not replying to e mails. So now he takes over with no proper tools to do a job, then two games into his job he's told by the OWNER that he is to be replaced at the seasons end (great timing what) yet he still tries to bring in players without spending any money as he knows there is none, yet no clubs will 'play ball' because of the ex coach ignoring them earlier in the season.
Yes it really is his fault

And what on earth has the unpaid ch Exec done to deserve this fate? he has provided all the finances wanted by the ex coach to the extent hat all the money had been spent when someone else took over.

Or is the blame attached to the guy who appointed BOTH these persons ie Arthur Thomas, yes lets sack him, ohh hang on he's the club OWNER, he can't be sacked.

Do me a favour

Er, that would be Allan, perhaps? Or is it the programme editor's fault, if we go down?

You know who I mean.
But if he is moved from the top floor but remains at the club he could go anywhere.
Dont make too many spelling mistakes.

This is sooooooooooo boring ,why do people insist its PRs fault ,if you were given the task of taking over a position after someone else failed to bring home the spoils but you still had to work with the same tools plus it was up to you to turn things around i bet you would be singing from a different hymn sheet to the one at the moment .

The point is that he hasn't turned things around.

Why is everyone assuming that this comment - if made at all - was by PR anyway? Even if it is true, and he has made such a comment (whoch TBH I doubt, but you can dream, can't you?), it'd only be to stop him from having to put 'sacked for incompetence' on his CV.