I'd argue that there's a need to have a tough overall rugby manager to carry out contract talks, deal with transfers, control discipline, deal with the media, oversee and coordinate youth and development stuff etc. He should then be over the first team coach providing input into the team direction but not necessarily dealing with the team all the time. He also would not be over friendly and over familiar with the team. The First team coach can then purely deal with the first team on the game and training field.

At the moment we seem to overload our coach with duties and expect him to be a strict disciplanarian who is totally friendly with the players while juggling every other duty except printing the programme. I can't see anyone can do that successfully

Why would we need to bring Hanley in?!

The board promised us a world class coach when Cullen resigned and who are we to say Lowes isn't? After all none of us run a rugby league club.

Are you;-
a - drunk
b - honestly suggesting that Lowes is a world class coach
c - trying (and failing) with a 'Sally'

7 depressing losses isn't exactly "World Class" is it?

Exactly what has Lowes brought to the advancement of this Club ??
As far as I can see....sweet FA

Is Hanley world class though??

I don't really understand why the national coach can't do 2 jobs (Tony Smith)

The games are spread over 3 days nowadays so he can get to other games besides the Warrington ones and he would see every team against Warrington

It's not like England play too many games, especially during the Super League season (1 I think? Against France?) and then the 4 Nations at the end of the season

GET TONY SMITH IN NOW!!

Interesting point from Geordie. Increasingly it seems to me that alot of the problems come from the top. Although Simon Moran has been great for the club in terms of pumping cash in but (and this is purely my own perception with no basis in fact) I get the feeling that the power in the team lies with him rather than coach.

In particular, I get the impression the signings we make are whims of fancy rather part of a structured scouting programme lead by the coach. Matt King and the Joey Johns signings are classic examples of this. Did we actually watch King closely before we signed him? Just from my cursory reading about the NRL lead me to believe that King wasn't anything special but had prospered by the tactic of high kicks to his flank where he outjumped the oppositon. The way his signing was flagged up - it was like the second coming of Phil Blake was on its way. Sullivan is another example - everyone in Oz said - the guy is a relief hooker not a scrum half so we faff around for a season until we realise he's a relief hooker not a scrum half.

Watching King against Saints was embarassing - was he injured or is he really that slow and lame.

I don't know why I'm so peed off - as to be honest I expected this season to start this way. I just can't believe that we appointed Lowes before the end of last season - the board had absolutely no need to rush into a decision - we won games we should have and then when we appointed him full time - the thing went South and the rot hasn't stopped.

I'm almost at the stage now where I hope we lose so we might actually get some change. I've supported the Wire for 26 years and I've never felt like that.

Well it can't be failing that bad as you question my prerogative after so long on here.

There is only 1 answer to our long term problems and that is Tony Smith. The problem we have short term is an inept coach and no one to fill the void on a temp basis. The calls for Hanley have there merits, he would instill discipline and put fear into the dressing room but its not a long term solution. We as a club are becoming a farce, expecting that if you pump money in (look at Man City, Newcastle) you are guaranteed success. It takes time to build a club and a winning team and at the moment a "team" is something we are a million miles from.

nice thread