JW has kept salford going for many years and i do thank him for that but i think since the form of super league all other clubs have progressed in a professional manner more than we have.



i said many years ago in my mind that salford will not move forward with jw in charge you could just see the little differences that made salford more of a joke club but back then you dare say any bad words about him over the last couple of years more people have seen this and i do still think if we do get out of this he should be given a seat to watch the games but not to run the club as he has kept us going but the people he employed to help him run



i for one do not think many salford fans would invest or raise 600k knowing it will yes allow us to start the season and sort other problems out but it means the current board are still in place to run the club we need new owners with new ideas i do think peel would help salford a lot with there business minded approach to making things a success.



the build it and they will come approach by him and the board was always doomed you need a team to even get a decent attendance never mind a average of 8k. it does really annoy me how you hear well hull did it and so did warrington but we are non of these clubs warrington have a big backer why jw thought we where similar is beyond me .



reading on twitter i believe we had a wage bill of £450,000 which was the highest in salfords era and was down to the last ever season at the willows it not like we spent the money on top class players more like the best of a bad bunch either it be mcrea fault or jw this whole 5 year business plan which rfl rubber stamp for a licence must just get put under the desk for another 3 years.



even with this new business plan that has been made up by a external company means nothing as far as i am concerned what ever happens a change at the top is needed .

Quote ="Prestwich Red"From the Microphone not working to then having to have a ear trumpet to hear JW talk just about sums up Salford at present. I may be shot down in flames for this but JW really came down in my estimation tonight. He is either very naive or a very bad business man. Expecting 8K fans to come along to the new stadium after average attendances at the Willows were around 5K is laughable. We were then told that attendance was needed due to the loss of other revenue streams, sorry but what type of business plan is that ? Surely they must have known about the service charge prior to the move and the loss of other earning streams. The Warrington example was then given regarding a stadium move which really did cap it all. We were finally asked if we the fans could get the money together (which I think was the main call for the meeting) 600K is a huge amount to owe creditors and that amount has been known for months. Lies and more lies have been told regarding this. We are up $hit creek without a paddle. icon_sad.gif" alt="icon_sad.gif" title="Sad" />'" At Wilderspool in the last couple of season Wire averaged around 7k. After the move to the HJ that's in excess of 11k. Hull's gates went up by more than that. I don;t think it was unreasonable to expect Salford's Willows average of 5k to go up to 8k

Quote ="Prestwich Red"From the Microphone not working to then having to have a ear trumpet to hear JW talk just about sums up Salford at present. I may be shot down in flames for this but JW really came down in my estimation tonight. He is either very naive or a very bad business man. Expecting 8K fans to come along to the new stadium after average attendances at the Willows were around 5K is laughable. We were then told that attendance was needed due to the loss of other revenue streams, sorry but what type of business plan is that ? Surely they must have known about the service charge prior to the move and the loss of other earning streams. The Warrington example was then given regarding a stadium move which really did cap it all. We were finally asked if we the fans could get the money together (which I think was the main call for the meeting) 600K is a huge amount to owe creditors and that amount has been known for months. Lies and more lies have been told regarding this. We are up $hit creek without a paddle. icon_sad.gif" alt="icon_sad.gif" title="Sad" />'" At Wilderspool in the last couple of season Wire averaged around 7k. After the move to the HJ that's in excess of 11k. Hull's gates went up by more than that. I don;t think it was unreasonable to expect Salford's Willows average of 5k to go up to 8k

Quote ="Red John"Not necessarily. It depends how you defined 'signed'. I got the impression that the coach identified the players he wanted and Steve Simms then signed them, where 'signed' meant 'negotiated the contract'. In addition, Steve McCormack might not be the typical case. He was a young, relatively inexperienced coach when he took over at Salford, and the board may have felt he needed some help in this area. A better test would be to find out how it worked with the coaches the club has had since ">then.'" You may be correct but the conversation seems to give the impression that they were Simms' choice of players as well. As for being SM being inexperienced isn't this also Veivers first head coach role as it was Parish's? And Harrison had only had a short spell at Keighley in the top job beforehand, so it was only McCrae who came with any prior experience as a full time coach and to be honest he has always come accross as a bit of a yes man. It would be likely that, whatever the truth of the situation, Simms' management style will have remained consisitent throughout his time at Salford. Another, probably more important, argument would be is his role required anyway, especially in these troubled times?

Quote ="Red John"Not necessarily. It depends how you defined 'signed'. I got the impression that the coach identified the players he wanted and Steve Simms then signed them, where 'signed' meant 'negotiated the contract'. In addition, Steve McCormack might not be the typical case. He was a young, relatively inexperienced coach when he took over at Salford, and the board may have felt he needed some help in this area. A better test would be to find out how it worked with the coaches the club has had since ">then.'" You may be correct but the conversation seems to give the impression that they were Simms' choice of players as well. As for being SM being inexperienced isn't this also Veivers first head coach role as it was Parish's? And Harrison had only had a short spell at Keighley in the top job beforehand, so it was only McCrae who came with any prior experience as a full time coach and to be honest he has always come accross as a bit of a yes man. It would be likely that, whatever the truth of the situation, Simms' management style will have remained consisitent throughout his time at Salford. Another, probably more important, argument would be is his role required anyway, especially in these troubled times?

I noticed the following link on another forum and there is no mention of the thoughts of the coach,at the time

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/11/1094789736825.htmlLINK- What May Have Been[/url

Quote ="Theboyem" Quote ="Red John"Not necessarily. It depends how you defined 'signed'. I got the impression that the coach identified the players he wanted and Steve Simms then signed them, where 'signed' meant 'negotiated the contract'. In addition, Steve McCormack might not be the typical case. He was a young, relatively inexperienced coach when he took over at Salford, and the board may have felt he needed some help in this area. A better test would be to find out how it worked with the coaches the club has had since ">then.'" You may be correct but the conversation seems to give the impression that they were Simms' choice of players as well. As for being SM being inexperienced isn't this also Veivers first head coach role as it was Parish's? And Harrison had only had a short spell at Keighley in the top job beforehand, so it was only McCrae who came with any prior experience as a full time coach and to be honest he has always come accross as a bit of a yes man. It would be likely that, whatever the truth of the situation, Simms' management style will have remained consisitent throughout his time at Salford. Another, probably more important, argument would be is his role required anyway, especially in these troubled times?'" Steve McCormack was different in that he'd spent pretty much his entire non-playing career at Salford (and was, remember, not much older - maybe younger - than some of the senior players we had at that time) whereas the others had been around a bit. Phil Veivers has been on the coaching staff at Wigan and possibly Huddersfield, for example. Karl Harrison had been assistant coach at Bradford. With regards Steve Simms role, [ievery[/i club will have someone who does those things, sometimes more than one person. Other clubs may have a more RL savvy CEO who could negotiate contracts, for example, or the chairman might do it, or another director might do it, but someone, somewhere will be carrying out those tasks. Removing him from the staff won't make them disappear, so you'd have to find someone else to do them.

Quote ="Theboyem" Quote ="Red John"Not necessarily. It depends how you defined 'signed'. I got the impression that the coach identified the players he wanted and Steve Simms then signed them, where 'signed' meant 'negotiated the contract'. In addition, Steve McCormack might not be the typical case. He was a young, relatively inexperienced coach when he took over at Salford, and the board may have felt he needed some help in this area. A better test would be to find out how it worked with the coaches the club has had since ">then.'" You may be correct but the conversation seems to give the impression that they were Simms' choice of players as well. As for being SM being inexperienced isn't this also Veivers first head coach role as it was Parish's? And Harrison had only had a short spell at Keighley in the top job beforehand, so it was only McCrae who came with any prior experience as a full time coach and to be honest he has always come accross as a bit of a yes man. It would be likely that, whatever the truth of the situation, Simms' management style will have remained consisitent throughout his time at Salford. Another, probably more important, argument would be is his role required anyway, especially in these troubled times?'" Steve McCormack was different in that he'd spent pretty much his entire non-playing career at Salford (and was, remember, not much older - maybe younger - than some of the senior players we had at that time) whereas the others had been around a bit. Phil Veivers has been on the coaching staff at Wigan and possibly Huddersfield, for example. Karl Harrison had been assistant coach at Bradford. With regards Steve Simms role, [ievery[/i club will have someone who does those things, sometimes more than one person. Other clubs may have a more RL savvy CEO who could negotiate contracts, for example, or the chairman might do it, or another director might do it, but someone, somewhere will be carrying out those tasks. Removing him from the staff won't make them disappear, so you'd have to find someone else to do them.

So Simms is in a job because nobody else in the boardroom or in the senior staff is competent enough to negoiate a contract or arrange a work visa. Hardly surprising your club is in trouble then. Square pegs and round holes come to mind.