I never thought your posts to be insightful enough for me to ignore you but maybe one day, stranger things have happened however unlikely.

Which of the signings he has made following that phylosophy are you not happy with?

I'm thinking it's Dave and Griffin

I didn’t say I was unhappy with the signings, it’s a shame we took so long into the season to find the money we never had apparently.

How far behind are you.
We didn't 'find it'. We had a new investor

Was it not you who posted that the negotiations to sign Fifita for example started long before the new investor arrived. This would suggest that the incumbents had found additional funds don’t you think?
I didn’t believe your original hypothesis because there is no way the incumbents would put more money into the club especially Carter who had announced he was leaving.

We sent Gaskell and Taufua to other clubs.

We did but after the arrival of Fifita and I am sure like all these type of transactions it was necessary to agree a settlement with each player we released. If we look at our early transaction we swapped one for another so no settlement necessary which fits the thinking of an accountant. The rest all involved some cost to the club therefore why would they increase their contributions when they know they are leaving.
I think you will just have to accept that with the exception of Hall for Dagger the rest have been financed by our new board member. I know this might be too much for you to accept because you obviously still believe in our incumbents but without our new member none of the recent signings would have happened. He has given us a chance that would not have been available if the incumbents were the only financiers.
I don’t know if we will take the opportunity offered to survive because we have probably left it too late but it’s still possible however this decreases with every defeat.

Well you are not correct but carry on anyway.

The new guy's money has definitely helped, but it wasn't him until he put it in.

What you are saying is that we had spare money to bring players in prior to our new sponsor therefore why didn’t they use this when it would be of of maximum benefit before we had lost so many.
I would suggest that history indicates you are wrong but for some reason you appear certain that the incumbents found or invested additional funds therefore why didn’t they do this earlier?

I really don't see what you are trying to prove. This has all been documented before.

Lino 3 year deal

That absolutely baffled me I have to say. Lino’s agent played a blinder there.

Regardless of who he’s partnered with this year we’ve looked completely rudderless and disjointed in attack. I’m not even sure he knows what he’s going to do until the ball ends up in his hands.

Last night he had runners outside him and dummied, delayed and then either sent a pass too late or jinked about. There were options last night which could have led to overlaps but for Lino to put in a bullet pass to a dummy runner instead of out back or a poor pass to the ankles.

His kicking isn’t great either.

I won’t doubt his enthusiasm but his style is just not working with how we are playing or wanting to play. What amazes me is that we signed him long term when he’s probably not the player to fit in with the style Mash wants to play. I’m not sure he would even go well in the championship.