Re: Catalans (H) : Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:14 pm  

Pie Eyed wrote:

You fail to allow for the fact that in any other business, if an employee is failing to deliver, they can be either sacked or managed out of the business and replaced (depending on the severity) on a 1-to-1 basis.

In rugby (and football), you can't just sack them as you need to pay up their ENTIRE contract and pay for a replacement as well, meaning that you pay double for 1 job.

We didn't sack Nobby to bring in Madge - We waited for his contract to expire and brought Madge in for the start of the following season.

Therefore, your assertion is equally disproved/flawed, although I agree with your main point that Lam is the issue here - Not Lenagan.

I'm not sure how this puts us in any kind of disagreement.

But for the record I never said that IL sacked Nobby. Just that he replaced him.

Re: Catalans (H) : Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:42 am  

Pie Eyed wrote:

You fail to allow for the fact that in any other business, if an employee is failing to deliver, they can be either sacked or managed out of the business and replaced (depending on the severity) on a 1-to-1 basis.

In rugby (and football), you can't just sack them as you need to pay up their ENTIRE contract and pay for a replacement as well, meaning that you pay double for 1 job.

We didn't sack Nobby to bring in Madge - We waited for his contract to expire and brought Madge in for the start of the following season.

Therefore, your assertion is equally disproved/flawed, although I agree with your main point that Lam is the issue here - Not Lenagan.

Lam may be the problem, but the fact remains that Lenagan has not sacked him either because he is happy with him as the Coach or as you say, if he sacked him, he would have to pay out his full contract plus have the additional cost of a new part season cost of a new contract for his replacement.

In my opinion, seeing that Lenagan is a business man, he has taken the cheapest option of not sacking Lam which is hardly surprising with the present financial state of the club.

The rumour that that a hardly known inexperienced "Coach" in Matty Peet is to be the replacement for Lam is hardly going to give supporters the confidence that things are going to improve on the coaching level of the club.

Re: Catalans (H) : Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:19 pm  

Ruddy Duck wrote:

Lam may be the problem, but the fact remains that Lenagan has not sacked him either because he is happy with him as the Coach or as you say, if he sacked him, he would have to pay out his full contract plus have the additional cost of a new part season cost of a new contract for his replacement.

In my opinion, seeing that Lenagan is a business man, he has taken the cheapest option of not sacking Lam which is hardly surprising with the present financial state of the club.

The rumour that that a hardly known inexperienced "Coach" in Matty Peet is to be the replacement for Lam is hardly going to give supporters the confidence that things are going to improve on the coaching level of the club.

If Pete does take over, it worries me that Lam didn't get sacked at some point this season and Peet took over.

Why would that be?

1 - IL thinks Lam better man for the job (worries me for next year)
2 - Pete not ready (worries me for next year)

I haven't mentioned financials as the above scenario wouldn't bring any additional costs... Only paying Lam off for his remaining months which IL may refuse to do out of principal?

Re: Catalans (H) : Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:54 pm  

nathan_rugby wrote:

If Pete does take over, it worries me that Lam didn't get sacked at some point this season and Peet took over.

Why would that be?

1 - IL thinks Lam better man for the job (worries me for next year)
2 - Pete not ready (worries me for next year)

I haven't mentioned financials as the above scenario wouldn't bring any additional costs... Only paying Lam off for his remaining months which IL may refuse to do out of principal?

Other possibilities:

3 - They haven't firmly decided yet (they said they were still going through the process at the fans' forum which wasn't long ago.
4 - They might not want to chuck Peet straight into the deep end having him coach his first SL games at the business end of the season.
5 - They might not want to disrupt the squad late in the season by swapping coaches, especially if Peet wants to make major changes.

I would have pressed the button straight after the Saints game but I can understand reasons why they chose not to.

Re: Catalans (H) : Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:42 pm  

nathan_rugby wrote:

If Pete does take over, it worries me that Lam didn't get sacked at some point this season and Peet took over.

Why would that be?

1 - IL thinks Lam better man for the job (worries me for next year)
2 - Pete not ready (worries me for next year)

I haven't mentioned financials as the above scenario wouldn't bring any additional costs... Only paying Lam off for his remaining months which IL may refuse to do out of principal?

Lam should have gone after the first season. That in itself would have generous.
The last 3 years have been a complete and utter waste of time.
IL got this badly wrong and it will take years to unravel the mess that has occurred during Lam’s tenure.