From the outside, and noting that Peacock should get neither all the credit or all the blame i’d say, on balance ‘no’. There are plenty of caveats I could add to that, and after relegation it could have been much worse. But we’re three years further on from the last time we were quite good in the top flight, and top 8 seemed more likely going into 2016 (for all that it turned out badly) than it does right now, even with promotion and survival secured pretty efficiently. Maybe after a couple more signings, we can think about getting back to the level that caused Morgan to be released!

What does impress me about his statement is that there are no excuses, or complaints about the adversity we faced. It was, as he says, a baptism of fire. There are plenty of more experienced people who would have struggled under those circumstances. Even Sheens, when somebody suggested he must have seen everything in his career, said this year’s injuries, illnesses and drug suspension were at another level to anything he’d experienced. It’s tough, especially away from the handful of the wealthiest clubs, and Peacock will have learned a lot. Personally, I wish we’d stayed up, won a trophy and he’d learned nowt, but life is full of disappointments.

Peacock was available so Rovers created a role for him. For me that's the wrong way around.

Sheens came in and Peacock was no longer needed if indeed he ever had been in the first place. Peacock went part time then one day a week then see you when you next pop in.

Good luck to Jamie in truth his worthwhile contribution at Rovers finished some time ago this announcement simply makes it official.

Peacock for me was another in a raft of abortive management appointments. On the board and coaching alike. We've had Scott,  Brown, Hackney, Keable, Langley, Pease, Peacock, Sandercock, Chester, Webster.. all brought in to fanfare/"great appointments" comments but are any still at the club except Webster? Either the chairmen have appointed the wrong people every year or... Meanwhile Mike Smith is a constant.

Since Lakin and Morgan left we've had average appointment after average appointment at the top table of the club and have stagnated as a result. The board continue to spend hundreds of thousands per year to just stand still.

Fresh thinking is needed for me. Bring in someone to the board from a NRL club for a couple of years. Back him with cash to get ahead in areas like memberships, reserve grade, marketing and match day experience. Similarly go for a strong NRL coaching assistant to succeed Sheens (looking like he hasn't signed an extension?). As I have commented before there is nothing in appointments so far to say we want to actually challenge any time soon. I hope this will be addressed with some ambitious announcement soon.

I don’t agree with all of that but some good points made, the main problem no one seems to address is who is going to supply the money? For all they have done the board don’t have the millions required & judgeing by the crowds we get the fans are not there in large enough numbers or prepared to pay a reasonable price either.

The new structure makes life easier financially from what I understand. We need better decisions from the top regards who we spend on. The story in the LE this week indicates new signings so let's hope they are quality.

We get the same amount of money as wakefield and cas, and Salford for that matter. We are bringing more youth through than the majority of Super League- on par with F.C so the first team squad should be as competitive as all the afore mentioned.
Wigan and Saints apart there should be not much difference in squad quality in Super League
So it begs the question, why aren't we signing quality players, in positions we are in dire need for. I dont buy in to this "we are on a limb out on the m62", we are the same geographically when we signed Vella, Webster, Dobson, Galea, Briscoe and even Willie Mason !!

I just think the board have been scarred by the likes of Gleeson, Thornley, Campese, Burns and the like who all commanded huge salaries. Time to take some risks and sign quality cos if we keep signing squad fillers like Walne we are going to come a cropper if London are to compete well this season.
Whoever goes down this season i think will find it as hard as it has ever been to regain top flight status as proved with the Championship quality last season.

Agree with a lot of this. All signings provide a risk, will they perform as expected, what if they get injured and can we cover them if they do, will they fit in. All relevant concerns, and as mentioned are the board now ultra cautious after being stung by previous adversity, which part of me can understand. The main point now though is that we absolutely must not be battling in the bottom two or three again. Success breeds success, or at least the possibility of it, and this club, with a fair wind and a bit of good fortune(for once) is more than capable of being a real force. That means signing real quality and making a statement, or are we happy to just compete and survive?
I don,t sign the cheques, and if I did I might also be ultra cautious, but supporters want success, I do, I saw it and it was fantastic, I want to see it again.
I have also seen the dark days and don,t ever want a repeat.
I honestly think with maybe three more quality signings(tough, but do-able with the will) we have a real chance to progress. Will it happen, I don,t know, but the silence concerns me, plus no news on TS signing an extension, or Blair being given a deal.
Training starts soon, some good news would be welcome.

While it should now be on a par with Hull, given we share an academy, and I haven’t done a club by club comparison, that feels like a stretch. Lawler might get a first 17 squad number for 2019, but if he does I suspect he’ll be the only one who could be viewed as being a Rovers product.

Wow, for someone like you who must spend every other minute looking at this forum, im assuming you attend the matches?? Oakes (yes he is or product, we got him as a just turned 16 little boy), Wallis, Cator, Wardill and Harrison must have sprung out of nowhere. I would even throw Mulhern in there, as 99% of his development has been at Rovers, likewise Atkin and Shaw.
so that's at least 5.

I reckon if you spent more time watching the first team instead of trawling through peoples posts on internet forum where people should say whatever they want, you may see furthur than your nose.

(2 hours later, PM- please refrain from having an opinion and just go with the flow. Im so scared of losing my admin role" MR)

So after that MR was right really the players you’ve mentioned aren’t really going to be starters and we can’t really claim Atkin Mulhearn and Shaw as our products but it’s good to see youth actually coming through

You’re entitled to your opinion, just as i’m entitled to disagree with it - I certainly won’t be sending you a PM about it!

I do prefer to discuss things with people I disagree with, and so have a tendency to play devil’s advocate. I apologise if you found my tone aggressive or patronising.

Our disagreement really comes down a different definition of ‘bringing through youth’. My feeling, in terms of making us attractive to new recruits, is that the young players of the fringes of the squad won’t make much difference to outsiders’ perception. We know who they are because we’re interested in Rovers. I imagine other clubs have their own youngsters, but I’m not very aware of them because they haven’t broken through yet. The brutal reality is that most won’t have long-term SL careers - and there’s no shame in that! Spaven, Beharrell, Peterson, Sheriff, Hallett, Ollet, Guzdek, Holker, Robinson, Jubb, Moran - that’s how it usually turns out. My opinion is that until a few more make it to first choice in the 17, we’ll be perceived as a club that struggles to bring much young talent through the ranks to the first team.

Atkin, Shaw and Mulhern is a different way of looking at it. However, Atkin was already 24 and established championship player when he joined. Shaw was also 24, and Mulhern 22. So I think that is a fair, but slightly separate point.

Fair do's but my main piont is that we ARE bringing youth through at the par rate of Super League. Why is it that only a small percentage actually breakthrough?

Every season we add the same amount of youth to the 1st team squad (usually 3-4 a season).
So why cant they make the breakthrough like St helens/Wigan/Leeds.

My guess is that in those teams, they have better players around them to help them when they make their debut. Whereas we have squad players with few quality ones mixed in.

It is an important, interesting and difficult question. I really don’t know. LifeLongHKRFan makes a fair point. Also, are they just not as good as the lads at Saints and Wigan, or are we missing something in our processes? One positive is that more of them seem to look physically ready to play against men than has sometimes been the case in the past.

I think it’s easier to slip a young player into a team that’s dominant without exposing him to much we’ve struggled one way or another for the last 4 or 5 seasons so any lads that have come through have been thrown into a bad situation