Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
ComeOnYouUll wrote:More rose tinted memories of Peter Gentle.
The Cup wins over Catalans and Warrington were great, of course, but the final saw as bad a performance as any under Radford, the play off debacle was a nadir in the club's history. The narrow win over Wigan's academy team the week after Wembley kept us in 6th, we hardly sailed into the play offs.
Also in 2013 every team beat us apart from London and Salford (the bottom two) and we had to come from behind to get a draw at London.
There was as much moaning on here then as there is now.
As has been pointed out Peter Gentle failed in his aim to narrow the gap between our good displays and our poor ones.
Whereas this season even the bottom team have managed it. Everyone bar Widnes has beaten us this year.
And the flip side in 2013, of course, was that there was only Hudds we didn't take points from.
It would be rose-tinted to suggest that everything was rosy under Gentle, when it wasn't. Whether or not we are better/worse/the same now as we were then is open to valid debate IMO.
Joined: Mar 14 2003 Posts: 25964 Location: Back in Hull.
The next 7 games will tell us if we are on par which Gentle. If we can finish 6th would it be a better finish than under Gentle as we have a tougher set of fixtures than he had?
Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
Mrs Barista wrote:In a nutshell. The win against Wigan was great fun but comedic when you think back to the team they fielded. Agar's FC in 2008 - without Dykes- delivered a Wembley final performance that totally eclipsed the one Gentle's could manage. And some of the contracts Gentle handed out compromised both the club's recruitment and finances to spend elsewhere. The Huddersfield effort was probably the most humiliating performance I've seen from FC in the SL era, including the 2005 Odsal debacle. Disenchantment with Gentle was significant. Appointing his successor was, like a few decisions made in this regime, done with too much haste. There should have been a fuller recruitment process IMO to assess a broad range of candidates. That said, most clubs seem to promote from within these days without open selection.
I still think the Hudds game was players giving up and wanting rid of their coach. As for sacking Gentle, I think it was perhaps another example of Pearson's personality/manner. I suspect his thinking that Gentle had done him over regarding player contracts had Gentle on his sh*t list irredeemably, and he was always going to take the earliest possible justifiable opportunity to pull the trigger. He then did so, but unfortunately in his seemingly impulsive way didn't actually plan through the next step.
Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
Diogenes wrote:There were rumours in the media as early as July that Pearson was going to sack Gentle but winning the CC semi final saved his job. If Pearson was planning on a change of coach for months then you would have thought he could have come up with someone better than he did.
Exactly. He himself went on record as saying that it was the run of 5 SL losses in June/July that made up his mind, so he knew at least 2 months beforehand that he needed to have a look at potential coaches.
Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
Dave K. wrote:The next 7 games will tell us if we are on par which Gentle. If we can finish 6th would it be a better finish than under Gentle as we have a tougher set of fixtures than he had?
It's one of those things that can never truly be settled, as it's not comparing like with like. You could just as strongly make the case that holding on to 7th with 2/3rd of the season being against the top 8 is better than 6th against the whole league, as you could say that this year's SL is weaker than 2013's overall, so 6th is less impressive.
carl_spackler wrote:Can you put any numbers to this rather than just speculation based upon costs being cut? What are the turnover & fixed cost comparisons between us, Leeds, Wigan and Saints?
I only ask because you keep saying that we don't have even close to the same level of funds to compete with the spending of the big 3, but (maybe I've missed it) I've not seen any reasons how you've come to this conclusion other than the observation that Pearson has started cutting costs and selling players.
I'd have thought it was common sense that the top 4's income will be higher than ours.
Higher gates brings in roughly £150k per season for every extra 1000. (No wonder AP keeps mentioning attendances.)
Prize money - Leeds get £100k this year for coming top. Then there's Wembley, Grand Finals, Club Challenge.
And I'm only guessing, but I suspect their ground overheads don't have to include an "Allam Factor".
Is Hodgson the new Griffin, or is it all about pace?
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
carl_spackler wrote:I still think the Hudds game was players giving up and wanting rid of their coach. As for sacking Gentle, I think it was perhaps another example of Pearson's personality/manner. I suspect his thinking that Gentle had done him over regarding player contracts had Gentle on his sh*t list irredeemably, and he was always going to take the earliest possible justifiable opportunity to pull the trigger. He then did so, but unfortunately in his seemingly impulsive way didn't actually plan through the next step.
I don't think appointing Radford was impulsive or a lack of planning. It's clear that Pearson puts great store on personal relationships and the idea that people emotionally invested in the club will perform better. He didn't have a close personal relationship with Gentle but apparently does with Radford. I think Radford was a deliberate choice based on these factors. Pearson's mistake was allowing his personal feelings to direct his choice rather than stepping back and making a dispassionate assessment of our needs and the best person to fulfil them.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Joined: Feb 20 2007 Posts: 10540 Location: Hunting Gopher
ccs wrote:I'd have thought it was common sense that the top 4's income will be higher than ours.
Higher gates brings in roughly £150k per season for every extra 1000. (No wonder AP keeps mentioning attendances.)
Prize money - Leeds get £100k this year for coming top. Then there's Wembley, Grand Finals, Club Challenge.
And I'm only guessing, but I suspect their ground overheads don't have to include an "Allam Factor".
I fully expect that the top clubs have more coming in than us. I'm not convinced it's quite as doomsday and 'unassailable' as Mrs B seems to think, though. If it is, then spending the full cap (or over, apparently) is a grossly irresponsible way to use the limited funds we have. It also begs the question of how quickly things have changed for us to go from refusing to play players we are paying, recruiting further players to replace said players we won't play, paying people off left, right and centre, and paying out a 6-figure transfer fee. All of this was still going on within the last year. Still, all of this reckless spending when a short while later we're apparently on the bones of our a**e will most likely be either McRae & Gentle's fault, or down to us fans. It's also a very strange idea to respond to a limited budget by cutting costs in what should already be the cheapest and most sustainable source of players, whilst still pushing funds towards chasing big name imports.
I personally think how we are choosing to spend our money is more of a problem than how much we have to spend.
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
carl_spackler wrote:I personally think how we are choosing to spend our money is more of a problem than how much we have to spend.
Agreed. In fact I think this has been at the core of our problems for years, starting well before Pearson took over. He's simply carried on the same trend.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
carl_spackler wrote:Can you put any numbers to this rather than just speculation based upon costs being cut? What are the turnover & fixed cost comparisons between us, Leeds, Wigan and Saints?
I only ask because you keep saying that we don't have even close to the same level of funds to compete with the spending of the big 3, but (maybe I've missed it) I've not seen any reasons how you've come to this conclusion other than the observation that Pearson has started cutting costs and selling players.
We file small company abbreviated accounts - our small size from a turnover/assets/employees perspective gives us exemptions from filing a P&L. These three don't qualify to do so because they are bigger financially.
carl_spackler wrote:Can you put any numbers to this rather than just speculation based upon costs being cut? What are the turnover & fixed cost comparisons between us, Leeds, Wigan and Saints?
I only ask because you keep saying that we don't have even close to the same level of funds to compete with the spending of the big 3, but (maybe I've missed it) I've not seen any reasons how you've come to this conclusion other than the observation that Pearson has started cutting costs and selling players.
We file small company abbreviated accounts - our small size from a turnover/assets/employees perspective gives us exemptions from filing a P&L. These three don't qualify to do so because they are bigger financially.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
