: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:16 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The obvious question for any side is, is it intrinsically a useless side that can't play, or is it a side with good players who can play? I'd say that the answer to that question is absolutely key in what you do to address the problems.

Seemingly we can play when the opposition allows us time and space to do so. However should we be put under pressure (HKR last min of first game, Cas last week, Cats this) we fold like a pack of cards.

So I presume that's the problem we have to address. Given it's not evident to me why players of Deacon's, Newton's, Menzies' experience should collapse under pressure there is obviously a serious issue with confidence that suggests a fundamental problem with the team culture rather than merely a 'blip'.

This is not easy to address, it could stem back to the Wigan playoff match, and it might be ingrained in the collective experience, such that at the first sign of recovery of the opposition doubt begins to creep in, which promotes mistakes. If we were 30-0 up against Leeds at half time on Friday I doubt there's any Bulls fan who would be totally convinced we could win, and I would suggest this goes for the manager and players too. That's a terrible position to be in. Ironically they often appear more comfortable and free to play when they're behind, finally losing the burden of the lead and being able to go in to fightback mode.

How to change this - we need to start afresh (impossible i know) but at least a new manager wouldn't have that millstone around their necks. Just imagine how the players feel, I think they genuinely like and feel for McNamara, and their anxiety about capitulating will be magnified by fearing heaping more of the same on him.

Is there really no way we can envisage a "Director of Rugby' situation, saving face for Macca before easing him out, or demoting him to assistant? The only other situation I can envisage at the moment is a slow agonising end for his reign, punctuated by a couple of narrow wins/entertaining losses but where where the pain is magnified by a failure to make the play-offs and some big beatings by Leeds/Saints etc.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:26 am  

tigertot wrote:

I disagree. if things continue there will be no option. I don't know how much it would cost to pay them off, but a few thousand off the gate times £15-20 each will soon stack up.

Sam and I were once told by the club the gross profit (in accounting terms, actually "contribution") per body through the turnstiles. I stress profit, cos that includes ancillary income but also is net of attributable variable costs and of course VAT. That figure was very substantially lower than the ticket value of entrance fees - as you would of course expect.

That said, you have a point - to a point. Without posting up figures on here, in terms of bottom line I suspect it would be six of one and half a dozen of the other at best fort the current year, with the cash outflow front-loaded.

The meeting I WOULD love to be a fly on the wall at is the one between Macca and Hood where they discuss whats going wrong. I suspect that would give a much clearer indication of what action needs taking.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:29 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Don't tell me you've now joined the ranks of those who think that sacking the coach is a cure-all which will immediately and with certainty transform our fortunes, win the league, and have said thousands clamouring to get in?

Irrespective of the talents, or lack of depending on your view, of Mac, unless you are Wayne Bennett you have a finite life at a club as head coach. There comes a time when you lose it, whatever 'it' is. I think Mac is close to that point. Thankfully the 3 year licence has given some stability but if it wasn't for this, & the fact that Celtic & Salford are maing up the numbers ATM, I believe Mac would be out by the end of the month. The potential financial consequences would be intolerable.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:33 am  

Adeybull wrote:

Sam and I were once told by the club the gross profit (in accounting terms, actually "contribution") per body through the turnstiles. I stress profit, cos that includes ancillary income but also is net of attributable variable costs and of course VAT. That figure was very substantially lower than the ticket value of entrance fees - as you would of course expect.

That said, you have a point - to a point. Without posting up figures on here, in terms of bottom line I suspect it would be six of one and half a dozen of the other at best fort the current year, with the cash outflow front-loaded.

The meeting I WOULD love to be a fly on the wall at is the one between Macca and Hood where they discuss whats going wrong. I suspect that would give a much clearer indication of what action needs taking.

There are fixed costs (administration on match days), the proportion of these to income increases with the reduced income.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:42 am  

tigertot wrote:

Irrespective of the talents, or lack of depending on your view, of Mac, unless you are Wayne Bennett you have a finite life at a club as head coach. There comes a time when you lose it, whatever 'it' is. I think Mac is close to that point. Thankfully the 3 year licence has given some stability but if it wasn't for this, & the fact that Celtic & Salford are maing up the numbers ATM, I believe Mac would be out by the end of the month. The potential financial consequences would be intolerable.

I said yesterday that whatever anyone feels about him, the departure of McNamara does seem to have the same air of inevitability and resignation as his face when interviewed in France. Whether and when that will happen still depends though, and I entirely agree with you that the lack of a relegation threat has the effect of increasing what might otherwise be a very limited shelf-life of coaches whose teams are under threat. ( Though not in all cases, as the sacking of Lowes demonstrated. Ironic that some want him here, a failed coach with less experience than the incumbent)

But going back to Adey's point, there is a financial reason for that, and that of course is weighing the cost of sacking a contracted coach against the disastrous financial effects of relegation.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:42 am  

tigertot wrote:

There are fixed costs (administration on match days), the proportion of these to income increases with the reduced income.

The proportion is not by itself relevant. You are stuck with fixed costs - including coaching staff salaries - regardless, at least in the short-term. What matters is whether you generate sufficient "contribution" (income less variable costs) to cover your fixed costs. If you do, then you are in profit. If you don't, you are in loss.

We can debate whether all fixed costs are really variable costs in the long term, whether many variable costs are really fixed costs in the very short term, and the behaviour of "semi-" or "stepped-" variable costs such as matchday stewarding all day, but the basic point remains.

Except what matters even MORE is whether you are generating enough contribution in CASH terms to cover your fixed-cost and capital outlays in cash terms. If you are not, then eventually you go bust - not through lack of profit per se, but through lack of cash.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:48 am  

Ah well, at least we can hope that in his meeting this afternoon, he presents his resignation

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:49 am  

Adeybull wrote:

The proportion is not by itself relevant. You are stuck with fixed costs - including coaching staff salaries

Shame some of them wont take a leaf out of Kris Radlinski's book and work for free till we get our selves out of this rut

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:54 am  

Visage wrote:

Shame some of them wont take a leaf out of Kris Radlinski's book and work for free till we get our selves out of this rut

It might yet come to that - or at least pay reductions.

: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:58 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well, none, Sherlock. But he never said it did, did he?

And the humiliating collapse doesn't alter the fact of the good first 45 minutes performance, and when we certainly have a big problem in the side, it won't help to fix it to pretend that we either can't play, or played crap all game.

The obvious question for any side is, is it intrinsically a useless side that can't play, or is it a side with good players who can play? I'd say that the answer to that question is absolutely key in what you do to address the problems. Shouting down Hood in a "Na na na I don't want to hear it" unctuous rage for providing a correct analysis, now that's what I call pointless.

But there's the thing. The team CAN play. We've got the players to compete on paper. However there's is clearly some very deepseated problem at the club be it clash of personalities, mental blocks or whatever. It's the head coach and his staff's responsiblity to get to the root of what's causing these collapses and put it right. They're clearly not doing it or what ever they're doing is falling short of what is needed