.

So basically you are saying that various board members, at various times, have made player recruitment decisions independent of, and in opposition to, the wishes of the coach at the time.

May I ask.

1. Does this extend to young players being sent out on loan/exile ?
2. When did this stop (if it has)?

All I care about is..............who signed dudson???

If only Moran had ordered a cappuccino instead of a latte during that particular meeting, that misunderstanding could have been avoided.

I'm not much of a gambler but I would stick quite a bit on the two who copped it both have a surname beginning with the same letter?

Interestingly though Powell was complimentary about his dealings over a new contract with Mulhern - the only player he mentioned in this respect.

That's a bet I can get behind it was fun working out which 1st team players it couldn't be

So far I had Ashton, Lynch, Vaughan, Kasiano, Philbin, Bullock, Shingler, Green, Nicholson.

I have always been convinced that Burrell was not a Price signing and now we hear that the head coach was not fully on board with Latu’s signing and Sita’s contract extension.
So from what I read some of the board then agreed to become less involved in the recruitment and retention.
That is sort of backed up by Stuart Middletown recent interview where he says they maybe gave Powell too much control.

“Last year’s results were very disappointing after putting all the resources in place and I think we’ve learned now that in the future we’ve got to ask a lot more questions and not just give someone a free rein and let them do what they want.

“We have to challenge things if we think something is not right, and it’s clear we didn’t get it right last year, we need to make sure we don’t go through that procedure again.”

Depending on how you interpret those comments you could see that as going back to the Latu / Sita days.
I just hope that Sam and Chambers are strong enough to resist any unwanted interference. Clearly the board need to check and challenge but my worry is that “if you don’t get it off your Dad then you go to your Mum” so if a players says he wants £X for his new contract and the coaching team think he is only worth £Y then we can’t have players going to Mum to get what they want. We have to strike the right balance between check and challenge and interfering. I think those comments open the door a bit.

I think this is a problem Warrington have faced since becoming one of the big 4. We are really the only RL club who spends, and it's easy to see why a player who comes here (even with the best intentions) falls into the trap of wanting a 'slice of the cake' with relatively little pressure to perform (big money, long contract, too close relationship with top brass, future sorted etc).

Maybe if we want this to change moving forward, we have to look at who we get, how we get them, and how we write their contract. Maybe an incentivised deal similar to what we offered Holbrook is the way to go? This is obviously difficult with a salary cap in place.

Just seen the extended interview of gary Chambers on Wire TV, I have to say he comes across very well and seems to be as big a Wire as we all are.