Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:14 am  

Paul T - HKR wrote:

I am sure NH (& RC) do cross that line but it does seem to be policy to let the head coach select who he wants and the Board deliver within reason. The only instance of Board room interference I know of is the Mason signing under Justins tenure.

When Josh was given permission to fulfil his ambition of playing in NRL the spine of the team hadn't been ripped out, there wasn't a quota spot available so a replacement was sourced from the Home market - I am assured this has been done and waiting TBA.

Travis's departure was agreed with a replacement in mind, the reason for Smithy's trip down-under.

Keating's departure was a decision pending with Smithy sourcing availability as part of his trip down-under, the player CC preferred is available so the club released Keating.

So, whilst it may seem baffling - as if these decisions where made spur of the moment - there is method in the madness, it just looks far worse now than it did when Josh started the ball rolling.

If you think the board only played a part in the Mason signing then you are certifiably insane...

Carlos is nearer the mark than yourself.

Unfortunately , the last few years of the boards poor attempts at Rugby League Manager on the back of beer mats , has left us more or less cast iron certainties to finish outside the 8 and be fighting to retain a spot in SL...some "method" that...

So unless the "method" was to guarantee lower crowds and income and a fall off in season tickets at the end of next season then i suggest it needs to be revamped...

Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:47 am  

Voltaire wrote:

If you think the board only played a part in the Mason signing then you are certifiably insane...

Carlos is nearer the mark than yourself.

Unfortunately , the last few years of the boards poor attempts at Rugby League Manager on the back of beer mats , has left us more or less cast iron certainties to finish outside the 8 and be fighting to retain a spot in SL...some "method" that...

So unless the "method" was to guarantee lower crowds and income and a fall off in season tickets at the end of next season then i suggest it needs to be revamped...

You certainly like your soundbites. Your observations would carry more weight if you provided some actual evidence to support them.

Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:30 am  

If you read Voltaire posts he is the legion of doom none us really know what goes on behind the scenes and it's a bit stupid to think that the board just sell the best players and then say to Mike Smith just go to aus and sign a few players I guess it's been planned a bit better we all knew Travis was leaving months ago so I guess the coach and board knew even longer people are making out the season starts on Sunday and we don't have a team

Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 12:44 pm  

Voltaire wrote:

If you think the board only played a part in the Mason signing then you are certifiably insane...

Carlos is nearer the mark than yourself.

Unfortunately , the last few years of the boards poor attempts at Rugby League Manager on the back of beer mats , has left us more or less cast iron certainties to finish outside the 8 and be fighting to retain a spot in SL...some "method" that...

So unless the "method" was to guarantee lower crowds and income and a fall off in season tickets at the end of next season then i suggest it needs to be revamped...

Perhaps only you know what you are responding to because it bears no relation to the debate between myself and Carlos. For the record, I will stick to my certifiable insanity, thank you very much

Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:19 pm  

Voltaire is a bitter old man.

Anyone seen Larry Billey around here lately? Maybe he forgot his password.

Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:04 pm  

Paul T - HKR wrote:

I am sure NH (& RC) do cross that line but it does seem to be policy to let the head coach select who he wants and the Board deliver within reason. The only instance of Board room interference I know of is the Mason signing under Justins tenure.

When Josh was given permission to fulfil his ambition of playing in NRL the spine of the team hadn't been ripped out, there wasn't a quota spot available so a replacement was sourced from the Home market - I am assured this has been done and waiting TBA.

Travis's departure was agreed with a replacement in mind, the reason for Smithy's trip down-under.

Keating's departure was a decision pending with Smithy sourcing availability as part of his trip down-under, the player CC preferred is available so the club released Keating.

So, whilst it may seem baffling - as if these decisions where made spur of the moment - there is method in the madness, it just looks far worse now than it did when Josh started the ball rolling.

I don't for 1 minute think that these decisions were made on a whim and a lot of me commends the board for allowing josh to follow his dream but as a Hull Kr fan I'm worried we would let him go without a replacement? We maybe have 1 I don't know but were getting linked to every half back and hooker in world at moment so don't look likely. And if we had someone lined up to replace Burns why did(as reported) we make an offer to Carney? Surely we didn't agree the burns deal on the hope we had a player? Maybe we have all 3 positions covered but all the evidence points the other way. Don't for 1 minute think I don't appreciate all NH and the board have done for the club I do but at the moment I'm thinking next year could be a long year?!

Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:57 pm  

MagicCarlos wrote:

I don't for 1 minute think that these decisions were made on a whim and a lot of me commends the board for allowing josh to follow his dream but as a Hull Kr fan I'm worried we would let him go without a replacement? We maybe have 1 I don't know but were getting linked to every half back and hooker in world at moment so don't look likely. And if we had someone lined up to replace Burns why did(as reported) we make an offer to Carney? Surely we didn't agree the burns deal on the hope we had a player? Maybe we have all 3 positions covered but all the evidence points the other way. Don't for 1 minute think I don't appreciate all NH and the board have done for the club I do but at the moment I'm thinking next year could be a long year?!

Looking from the outside in I think the club have dropped a huge bxxxxxk by hoping they were going to get players to fill the gaps, when you look at the names being bandied about. For example did they honestly believe they were going to get the following
Burns. Either Carney or Sandow
Hodgson. Lunt was supposed to be a done deal with Carlisle as number two
Keating . Are they happy to let him go with no replacement lined up or is Beharrell the answer

How can Mike Smith have enough knowledge on players credentials to be able to negotiate deals when his past experience was a pub landlord. As far as I know anyway
Surely Phil Lowe should have been involved although his name is never mentioned isn't he director of rugby anymore?

Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:01 pm  

I would imagine our recruitment is well on track, the only thing that gets my goat is good news should be announced quickly, for pass sales, optimism and for the peice of mind for us fans.

Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:28 pm  

don't worry hessle rover i had a argument with a bloke on red army, due to the fact he seems the players we lost hated neil hudgell and the way he runs kr, and he said he should keep his nose out of everything.. but like i say without these guys there would be no kr. so we owe them a lot of respect yes he made some mistakes but he must know what he is doing.. but i agree if we were about to sign big names i.e brough,lunt, sandow. we would be shouting about it now to sell season passes.. and to reassure fans all is in hand.. and i just wondered who is saints hooker or replacement hooker... just thought if people are saying it is one who are with a team in playoffs and it maybe a deal with burns due to we was getting 100k but ended up with 60k, maybe the 40k a miss was a payoff for there hooker just wondered..

Re: new player : Tue Sep 30, 2014 3:31 pm  

easthull4 wrote:

Looking from the outside in I think the club have dropped a huge bxxxxxk by hoping they were going to get players to fill the gaps, when you look at the names being bandied about. For example did they honestly believe they were going to get the following
Burns. Either Carney or Sandow
Hodgson. Lunt was supposed to be a done deal with Carlisle as number two
Keating . Are they happy to let him go with no replacement lined up or is Beharrell the answer

How can Mike Smith have enough knowledge on players credentials to be able to negotiate deals when his past experience was a pub landlord. As far as I know anyway
Surely Phil Lowe should have been involved although his name is never mentioned isn't he director of rugby anymore?

The players you name as replacements for Josh and Travis haven't come from the club - I recall the Lunt one in the HDM and League Express linking Rovers with Carney (and more recently Campese) but Sandow is rumour mill. TBH it is par for the course to be linked with all and sundry especially when there's a transfer kitty. It all adds to the drama and frustration of the situation.

As for Smithy's competence in these matters, he is highly regarded amongst his peers and more importantly trusted by the Board. He shares the same values as NH and RC when it comes to Rovers and has done a pretty good job as CEO and negotiator, bringing a host of top players to the club. I am sure once all of the deals are done and dusted the club will make the announcements, and if Chester's comment in the HDM today is anything to go by there might be some 'positive' news sooner rather than later.