Excellent post. Especially the large font paragraph.

I had to ask the question because, as already touched upon, it had different interpretations. I'm quite sure the head coach is in control of everything to do with picking the team, forming the plays and what not. Of course, Simms is entitled to an opinion just as we all are. Being a man of some experience in the area of coaching, he may actually be asked for an opinion by the coaches themselves.



Look at Ratchford for proof. He was very much on the outs under McRae; you guess Shaun didn't rate him. Yet he's a regular under Veivers. Both coaches under the stewardship of the same man but with differing opinions that were reflected on the team sheet. So it's fair to conclude that any inclination by Simms's to stick his oar in is probably minimal. Some ex-players, ex-coaches may disagree with this. However, there are probably other reasons to why they are former rather than current.











I agree that it would placate some fans if he didn't go in the changing rooms at half-time because it does suggest involvement in team matters. Again, he may be asked by the coach to offer insights and encouragement. The board may insist on it - they may want to know what goes on in there given the let downs they have had in the past. He could, therefore, be somewhat of a spy. An onlooker. An observer. We really don't know do we?







This is the other interpretation. I doubt that the majority of head coaches in rugby league have total control of who they sign. This isn't Manchester United and Alex Ferguson we're talking about here. I doubt many head coaches at Super League level say to their club's board 'I want [iplayer x[/i, make sure it happens'. He was probably given a list of players whose agents were sounded out, who were available and showed some interest in coming to Salford. The list may have been compiled by various people at the club. The head coach then may choose who he thinks could fit in. This isn't full control.







Yes. Same as in all sports including football; including Fergie.

We need to demonstrate things have changed with the new stadium. I sometimes thing we aren't good enough at making the noises other teams do.



We have just signed a good french kid but for reading forums would you know?



I believe Alan Hunte is doing a good job but how does this information get past the internet?



The club shop and the rest of the merchandising is an area where an immediate impact can be made. It shouldn't be run by people doing a more "important" job it should be their focus. Some will remember the days when Chris took over, the shop should become a place where fans go to discuss the games, pick up information, be part of the Salford Family. I hope something better is planned for the stadium. What about a kids corner or something more than the Xmas party.



As for the playing side, lets have a captain who is a leader. A Coach who talks up the team and players not make stupid statements to the press such as "I don't know what the problem is"



We need a buzz, get communities involved spread the word of the "family"



We will all need to do our bit, support the lads not abuse the ref, the other team, or our own players.

Why isn't it full control if the coach gets to choose who he signs from a list of players available and willing to join Salford? If this isn't full control what is?

Let's take a hypothetical scenario: a club can make one signing and a short list of three players is being compiled for the coach to decide upon. The guys doing the negotiations narrow the options down to [iplayer a[/i, [iplayer b[/i and [iplayer c[/i.



[iPlayer d[/i was approached by the negotiations team but they didn't get on with the player's agent, so he wasn't included on the short list. However, the coach loves [iplayer d[/i. He thinks [iplayer d[/i would be a perfect fit into his team. Yet the coach isn't given the option; the coach never even knew he was available.



[iPlayer e[/i was on the original short list but one of the club's executives knows the guy who represents [iplayer c[/i, thinks they can do a good deal, and wants him on the list - at the expense of [iplayer e[/i.



This isn't full control but I bet this happens at most clubs. Full control would be for the coach to go to the board and say 'I would like [iplayer d[/i here next season'.

Quote Chico="Chico"This isn't full control but I bet this happens at most clubs. Full control would be for the coach to go to the board and say 'I would like [iplayer d[/i here next season'.'" I appreciate what you are saying Chico about a coach saying "Sign me him" but would the coach know if the player he wanted was:- 1. Willing to join the club? 2. Affordable and within the budget? The coach will have full access to out of contract players to choose from. www.therugbyscout.com/ I'd hazzard a guess it works something like this:- 1. The coach knows the areas he needs to improve and then selects a first, second and third choice for each position he's looking to strengthen. 2. The club will then make the enquiries with players and their agents and report back to the coach on who will come and what money they want. 3. The Coach may then have some tough decisions to make to work within the budget. For instance if I sign that prop and that winger we can't afford that centre etc. It's easy for any coach to say sign me that player but it's surely not as easy as that.

Quote Chico="Chico"This isn't full control but I bet this happens at most clubs. Full control would be for the coach to go to the board and say 'I would like [iplayer d[/i here next season'.'" I appreciate what you are saying Chico about a coach saying "Sign me him" but would the coach know if the player he wanted was:- 1. Willing to join the club? 2. Affordable and within the budget? The coach will have full access to out of contract players to choose from. www.therugbyscout.com/ I'd hazzard a guess it works something like this:- 1. The coach knows the areas he needs to improve and then selects a first, second and third choice for each position he's looking to strengthen. 2. The club will then make the enquiries with players and their agents and report back to the coach on who will come and what money they want. 3. The Coach may then have some tough decisions to make to work within the budget. For instance if I sign that prop and that winger we can't afford that centre etc. It's easy for any coach to say sign me that player but it's surely not as easy as that.

Chico - I tend to agree with you - the coach makes the final call on who is the best player available and willing to join but doesn't necessarily know the full list to choose from or the reason why out of two possible recruits why we got player a and not player c.



At a well run club i would like to think that the starting point of the negotiating team would be "we need a new (say) prop let's have the coach list who he thinks may be the right person and share with the coach our intelligence about who is available and affordable". From there they draw up a credible short list and there is close liaison between coach and negotiators about how the selection process goes. in that way you hopefully achieve the right balance of improving the playing staff without overly-compromising the club either financially or reputationally



The bigger the power imbalance betwen the executive team and the coach the further from that scenario you get. I can imagine that Ferguson will know every detail of why the pursuit of a player isn't succesful and would crucify anyone who didn't do everything possible to get the right man. I'd imagine that the Chelsea coaches will be far less privy to the detail of negotiations or why you ended up with player Torres instead of a new left back (or whatever).



I reckon modern rugby league clubs are nearer the ideal model that football clubs and than they were in the days of Lindsay at Wigan. I'd probably also include the Snapes at Salford in that latter category, and that prompts the question about whether fans will always consider director interference a bad thing. Reading David Watkins autobiography suggets that the coaching staff knew very little about his signing until after it was a done deal. I guess it depends on the choices made.....

Are we suggesting here that the coach should be given control of the club finances and allowed to spend money the club hasn't got?

Guys, apologies for my lack of response, (been busy working all day). I certainly wasn't playing Devil's Advocate with the original post.

Can I just point out that nowhere in my OP did I mention Steve Simms. I did not intend to start another SS bashing thread. I'm neither a fan nor a hater. However, there are some interesting comments/opinions relating to the man, whom I've no doubt is held in high regard at the club. As already mentioned, I see absolutely no reason for him to be alongside the Head Coach on matchday. I think that situation alone does indeed lead people to believe that he has a say with the team selection/interchanges to some degree.

As for the other points I made, I'm certainly not expecting any silverware to suddenly appear (been watching far too long to expect that), but I'd class success as being ultra competitive in each and every game, home or away, league or cup, with the now customary capitulation a thing of the past.

I know there's a lot to do and a lot of hard work to be done, I just sincerely hope that it all comes together after a really long wait.

Cheers

No - I meant power imbalance in either direction. If the coach has too little say it will (probably) be bad for the playing side, if the coach has too much influence it will (probably) be bad for the business side

I couldn't possible comment