Ian Lenagan has managed to win a SL trophy and increase the attendance at Wigan by 22% since he took over...he'll be in no rush to spend any more cash until he as ensured Wigan are sustainably self sufficient.



David Hughes???? This guy treats London Broncos as a hobby.....he invests 1.5 million a year and has cut back the back office staff to a junior sales rep, 2 telesales guys on 90 day contracts and a CEO with not a ing clue what he's doing.......the concept of him wanting to spend more money is laughable......



McManus was bemoaning the cost of running his club and that SL was too big.......the only way he and the other guys you've mentioned would vote for a bigger cap is by reducing SL by 2 teams...if not 4.



Sky money is in place for the next few years....1.3 mill a pop....shedding 2 years would add 200k to the cap.......that's the only way I see it being "changed" at the moment.



So what if we lose some "RL" stars to the NRL or the other code....the game is bigger than any individual or team....

Well done on spectacularly missing my point.



Salford's "place" is wherever they end up. What I personally would hate to see is an owner who thinks they can just wave a chequebook and the best players will come running. All that is going to lead to is him getting disillusioned when he doesn't have instant success, and potentially pulling out his cash and leaving Salford up the creek without a paddle.



You've even used my phrase in your rant - "building". Building takes time. Salford need time. Does Koukash have the patience and geniune interest in the game to give them it? Time will tell.

So what's the Abramovich reference? Is he bored? His club won the biggest club football competition in the world last year. If that's what a bored owner gets you, sign me up.

Couple of things here.....Firstly, Chelsea are not limited to or by a Salary Cap, therefore, the BILLIONAIRE owner can buy who his manager wants, when he wants.



Then there's the Champions League success......the one trophy the Russian craved the most.....Chelsea FC cost him an estimated £140,000,000 and he immediately gave his first manager another £100,000,000 to spend on players. In 2009, Abramovich wrote off £700,000,000 of loans to the club......essentially making them debt free. I believe that last year, Chelsea posted a profit of about £1,500,000.



So, for basically an investment of £1,000,000,000 over 10 years he eventually got what he wanted...a Champions League Winning side that is now able to stand on it's own 2 feet now he's stopped spending money on players.



If you think for one second anyone can compare the investment of Dr CashCow to that of Chelseas seriously cashed up owner, then think again.

The reference had little to do with the cash spent and everything to do with him getting bored. I am fully aware of the salary cap restrictions, but that has nothing to do with the initial comparison of an owner getting bored.



I think my initial fear with Koukash was that he was, if we are comparing with football owners, a Michael Knighton rather than an Abramovich. Knighton promised the world and was a fraud. If you want a comparison, use that rather than the massively successful Russian as a way of putting Salford down you daft gets.

WTF?

When did I put Salford down? I want RLtodowell and this guy is like a breath of fresh air, but he'll need to calm down a bit if he wants things to go his way.....as others have said, his appointment of coach will be a decent barometer as to where he believes they can go in the short term...personally, I think he'll optfor acouple of big name signings and a coach like Noble.......Looking at a top 8 finish in 2014 and higher again in 2015. In the meantime, he should be looking at investing in a decent conveyerbelt as well as picking up those kids not deemed "good enough" for saints/Wigan yoof etc....BIG NAME SIGNINGS DON'T WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS ON THEIR OWN!

One of us needs to argue this as a grown-up, so it may as well be me.



The Abramovich reference was to the way he has dealt with coaches/managers/players who were unable to give him exactly what he wanted, straight from the outset.



He's constantly chopped and changed his managers, he's bought players in that the managers didn't necessarily want simply because he wanted them and it suited him (I'm thinking Shevchenko and Torres here) and when these things haven't brought immediate success he's simply sacked the lot and started again.



Is Koukash prepared to put up with Salford having a gradual, organic growth supported by investment in youth, infrastructure etc, or is he just here to play fantasy RL and buy as many big name players as he can in an attempt to go from bottom to top in one step?



Like I said originally, his next appointment as coach needs to be someone who is prepared to sit him down and point out that he cannot simply go out and buy success without building the foundations first.

fyi www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... sh-1719879 cheers

fyi www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... sh-1719879 cheers

Quote Hillbilly_Red="Hillbilly_Red"fyi www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... sh-1719879 cheers'" Does this mean that you agree with Dr K, that Veivers should have gone, despite not yet having anything like a SL squad to run with ?

Quote Hillbilly_Red="Hillbilly_Red"fyi www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... sh-1719879 cheers'" Does this mean that you agree with Dr K, that Veivers should have gone, despite not yet having anything like a SL squad to run with ?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. If you've got money to spend on both, what better way to get massive interest in your newly inspired youth and academy set up than bringing in big name players and winning games?



Why must it be one or the other?

Amen to that.



Fan reaction to Veivers sacking:[urlhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/sport-opinion/phil-veivers-deserves-another-chance-1720603[/url