Even if that were the case, I repeat the point I made earlier. Since Agar has taken over he has consistently failed to get the best out of the players he has had. Regardless of whether they're his signings or not, he should at least be capable of this.

Well, I suppose i could mention the quota issue. Made Long pretty much the only target. Unless you didn't want to keep Moa?

The quota issue only came into it because we signed Fitz & O'Meley, I think they are both great but a half was a bigger priority. And yes I love Sammy but if we could have let him go and got in a Witt/Sammut type signing then I'd have been happy with that. Agar doesn't use Moa anyway.



If you want to say Agar inherited such a big mess because of the poor squad planning of his predecessors, then there's an example of Agar planning just as badly.

Not really, the fans wanted a big name 7 after Thorman, they got possibly the biggest. Our fans wouldn't have been happy with a Hanbury or Sammut at the time.

All 3 were signed because of the squad needing leadership.

So Rich was selflessly giving the fans the big name signings that they supposedly craved at the expense of his chances of success?





or was it just that the board knew that Long would sell more season passes than Hanbury or Sammut?



Whichever way you look at it, while Agar may have had to spend time sorting out problems with the squad created by his predecessors, he's certainly created quite a few of his own.

If you want to look at everything cynically, then fair enough. I can't argue against that.



I don't see many squad issues Agar has created, the squad's there. Whether he can get the best from it remains to be seen.

Sean Long signed on a 2 year deal.

Richard Horne given a new 3 year contract.

Danny Washbrook given a new 3 year contract

Failure to effectively replace Paul Cooke despite having 3(!) off-seasons to do so.

Lee Radford given a new 2(!) year deal.

Ewan Dowes given a new one year deal.

Peter Cusack's contract extension.

Beginning the 2011 season with only one recognised centre in the squad.

Stockpiling second rowers.

Using quota spots on Moa and Lauaki and then barely using them.



And those are just the ones that aren't debatable.

Was by far the best available given what the team needed at the time. Hasn't worked out well, not Agar's fault.



I think at the time the club rewarded him on his service. Not too bad a thing considering 50% of his salary doesn't count towards the cap.



On the back of a very good 2008 where he got into a number of coaches dream team, including Morgans.



I am in no doubt that Tansey and Nicklas were our back ups, the situation surrounding those 2 was far from Agar's fault.



Under rated is Radders, his deal has been reduced, so no problem for me especially at prop.



As a 5th prop, I certainly don't think Dowes is the worst.



Mmm, hard to argue with that one. Was more to sweeten the Fitz deal methinks.



Yeaman, Whiting, Turner has played most of his SL career there, then there's Briscoe.



Luauki is now a prop, as should Fitz be. So that leaves Tickle, Manu and Westerman(who's a 13).



They're not wastes if used correctly, and i've previously stated that Agar's bench baffles me.

You are extremely hard work East Hull but I'm starting to like you

Edited for accuracy.