What a pi55er that is.



I was hoping we might have that sorted soon.

My last info was a few months ago though, so who knows?

At least he'd take no prisoners against the pesky Frenchmen.

potter will be next bulls coach

I would have preffered Wayne Bennet or Alex Murphy or poached Sean Edwards from Union or Sir Alf Ramsey. But that's the board's lack of ambition for you.

Useful versus Catalans.

Potter would be my choice.



It's key, as others have pointed out, to get the right structrue under him too.



Would Potter come as "Director of Rugby" and Brian Mac as head coach?

I suppose, again, it's the money thing.

As I understand it McDermott has a year left on his quins deal so we would have to pay compensation. Unless quins are wanting to release him early anyway, and given quins partnership with the RU side and Denis Betts leaving gloucester with no apparent destination I suspect that may be the way things are going.



Think Potter for a year or 2 with McDermott as number 2 would be ideal appointment for us. Both know english game thouroughly and potter has good links down under for recruitment at end of next season. We'd have a known progression for the head coaches job so the transition to McDermott in a year or two would be a lot smoother and players signing would know who they would be playing for, for next few years.

The two problems with this scenario as I see it are firstly whether its finacially viable for the club and secondly whether McDermott would be prepared to be assistant for a year or two ( although we could maybe get round this by making Potter director of rugby responsible for recruitment and behind the scenes stuff like youth development and McDermott headcoach responsible for 1st team only).

great minds think alike WB I was typing my post at same time as you

My understanding, from the meeting eartlier in the year, is that the club's 'exposure' in that regard is covered by the ground, ie, that is the value of the lease is our full contribution to the OSV.



In fact the new ground (oh please!!) should cost much less on maintenance than the current stadium, so hopefully, should be beneficial to the finances.

the value of the lease is our contribution to the capital/build costs of the stadium. However once its built we have to start paying a normal rent as opposed to the nominal one we pay now. The maintenance costs will be lower but will be paid by the stadium management company, not us. so in effect we're swapping paying maintenance on an aging stadium to paying rent on a modern one. Depending on what the rents set at we could be better or worse off. Upside is at least we'll be able to plan longer term and wont have nasty suprises like 16k blocked drains to come out of our budget.