Have to agree with just about all the sentiments on here. The problem - for me - is the lack of elite experience on the non-playing side of the club. They genuinely believe that they know what it takes to reach the top of the game but they have no idea, because they've never really experienced it. Specifically, I refer to Richard Agar, James rule and Kath Hetherington who have absolutely no experience at any level of any signficance.

Kath has been around the game for years but has only ever been directly associated with the likes of Sheffield, Gateshead, and Bramley before us (all three of which went bust soon after!). Many people talk about her knowledge of the game which cannot be denied but its a parochial out of date knowledge and totally out of touch with the fast changing modern game.

In the modern game, the value of a coach / CEO / chairman is not who they bring in as a marquee signing (anyone can sign a big name if they're prepared to offer contracts that are either longer or more lucrative than anyone else); the true worth of the club's leaders comes in who they can squeeze in under the salary cap. Hungry players desperate to perform or blokes that have lost their way but can be turned around under good coaching. They're the sort that can turn a team around and - arguably - we've not really brought anyone in that fits that description under the current regime. Harsh? maybe, but even the likes of Tansey and Turner who started so well last year seemed to have lost their way completely by the end of the year.

Rumblings from within the camp suggest that one of our aussie marquee signings is less than impressed by the general lack of ambition within the current set up and he won't be taking up his third year option for 2012.

It should be no surprise. Why is agar still in charge? It can only be because it makes life much easier for Kath and Rule. Agar and Webster lack the experience to challenge them and are happy to plod along doing their best but, really, paddling frantically to stay afloat.

Martin Sadler in the League Express reported last week that since SL began, the title had been won five times by someone in their first season as a head coach (such as McGuire) and three times by someone in their first season coaching that club (such as McLennan) so the whole notion of Agar being a 'rookie coach' and 'not having his own team' was just a load of bull - he's got more experience than some of his peers, its just experience of mediocrity and he's just not good enough. Rule and Hetherington have kept him in position; they also appointed Peter Sharp. Once Agar gets the bullet (as I firmly believe he will before mid-season next year) then can we really trust them to make the right decision next time around?

The pendulum is swinging back to the Aussies once again; British coaches are well down the pecking order - overtaken by the new ideas coming from Smith, Brown and McGuire. Look at how many of the England squad come from Wigan, Warrington and Huddersfield. Our determination to stick with an English coach is not even admirable any more - its just stupid

Indeed not. Yet this doesn't seem to stop you continually implying/claiming that the directors are taking big salaries out of the club. And therefore I can counter with an opinion that our relatively strong level of profitability in a year we finished 12th and went out to Salford in the first round of the cup might indicate otherwise.

I'd counter it with the fact that I doubt we saw much drop in income, if any. I'm not saying the directors are taking big salaries, just that it's a possibility. I thought we made £70k last year? Hardly a "strong" level of profit on £5m turnover (although obviously better than a loss before you come back with a predictable response)

What, the loss we would have made had the directors taken big salaries out of the club, you mean?

Our best year of profit in recent years was when we won the CC, plus a decent year in 2008 IIRC. The value of getting to finals financially shouldn't be underestimated. Warrington turned in a profit last year (loss making the year before) off the back of a Wembley trip. Saints blamed a major part of their YOY worsening profit on failing to get to Wembley again. So success in the cup at least does have a significant impact on the bottom line, which by default means that finishing 12th and being dumped out of the cup v Salford but remaining in profit is a decent result.