Re: Looks like : Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:46 pm  

bren2k wrote:

I'm a great believer in not burning ones bridges so I certainly wouldn't advocate an acrimonious parting with JK; in all honesty though, I don't think a few people posting their opinions of his policy towards using young players in the first team is likely to stay with him forever.

Again agreed but sadly it doesn't seem to stop at that. One mans considered opinion on here quickly becomes a 4 pints Billy big bollox excuse to abuse, sometimes in person. I know you can't control peoples thoughts but the more level heads pushing the Kear positives the better.

Problem we have is that Kear is the only person associated with the playing/non playing side of the club who has any real media profile we have. If Kear takes umbridge and he has been known there is no one to counter that. I'm not trembling with fear over big bad Kear it's just an issue we could do with out.

There has been an opinion in the game since the early 70's that Trinity is not a good club to join as a player or a Coach. It's persisted for all that time and has more or less been the case id somewhat exagerated by some players who held an unfair grudge for their own gain. We reached rock bottom last year but seem to have started to move upwards, we need positive praise but in Kears case saying nowt will do just fine.

Re: Looks like : Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:03 pm  

eric wrote:

Over the years I have read your posts with great interest and you speak a great deal of sense but where this is concerned you have not got a clue what you are talking about and the circumstances around the alleged departure. You talk (in this case) utter bo77ocks.

Eric or Bens dad as I know you are (let's cut the bull) you may be right. I don't know the full circumstances, however I do know that it has been stated that Kear has no say in recruitment.

So you may think Ben has been shafted and you may be right, but unless you are suggesting AG is lying and Kear is still involved in recruitment then I can't see where Kear is to blame. It must be whoever is assembling the team now - surely that is logical?

You may or may not think Kear has given Ben enough chances but that is pretty subjective and in your case it's fair to say a bit biased. Remember you were quite happy to see Ben go to Cas as a junior for what I assume to have been a better deal. I don't blame you, far from it but these things cut both ways.

I'm not defending the decision to let Ben go, I'd have liked to keep him and I'd have been willing to pay more than the peanuts I know he is currently on. What I am saying is that this can't just be about Kear, if Trinity wanted him there are now others making those calls.

Personally I think Kear has given Ben a decent run, you probably feel different - however that's not the issue anymore, the issue is whether he fits into the plans of the new set up and it would appear he doesn't or at least not at a rate that appeals to Ben. It's sad and not something I wanted to see but it's how it works, I hope Ben does very well at Salford and reaches his full potential.

Where am I wrong, I've tried to be balanced with the info available.

Re: Looks like : Sat Aug 27, 2011 2:37 pm  

vastman wrote:

I agree but in this case it's not really down to Kear.

Slightly off topic but Kear may net be everyones cup of tea but the reality is he won't disappear like most previous coaches have. He is fairly well liked and well respected in the game, especially the media. His opinions matter and he may well end up in a position where he could either help us or hurt us, we simply don't need the latter. Kear for me is a man who we should keep on the right side of if at all possible.
I know for a FACT (Fully mode) that Solomona was very unhappy with his treatment when he left. To his credit I don't think he ever bad mouthed us to other NZ based players but he didn't recommend us either. It would be much better for us if a respected player actively pushed the club in NZ as it would be if Kear did here. Not saying they would, just suggesting we make it harder for them not to - it may go against peoples emotions but it's good business.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. In the last 14-16 months everything has gone a bit sour for whatever reason, but between August 2006 and 2009 Kear was at the helm during a very good period for the club. We should look at his tenure as a whole rather than just the bit at the end. If Kear hadn't arrived we would now be going to batley on a Thursday night and we would be a million miles away from SL/Newmarket/a very bright future. He's got his faults but in the main the club and Kear suited each other down to the ground. It's time for him to go but I will applaud him off against Bradford

Re: Looks like : Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:11 pm  

agreed 100% schunter. Even the most ardent kear out fans must surely find that hard to disagree with.

Re: Looks like : Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:13 pm  

Schunter wrote:

He's got his faults but in the main the club and Kear suited each other down to the ground. It's time for him to go but I will applaud him off against Bradford

Totally agree - I'll join in you that applause, without question.

Re: Looks like : Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:33 pm  

vastman wrote:

Eric or Bens dad as I know you are (let's cut the bull) you may be right. I don't know the full circumstances, however I do know that it has been stated that Kear has no say in recruitment.

So you may think Ben has been shafted and you may be right, but unless you are suggesting AG is lying and Kear is still involved in recruitment then I can't see where Kear is to blame. It must be whoever is assembling the team now - surely that is logical?

You may or may not think Kear has given Ben enough chances but that is pretty subjective and in your case it's fair to say a bit biased. Remember you were quite happy to see Ben go to Cas as a junior for what I assume to have been a better deal. I don't blame you, far from it but these things cut both ways.

I'm not defending the decision to let Ben go, I'd have liked to keep him and I'd have been willing to pay more than the peanuts I know he is currently on. What I am saying is that this can't just be about Kear, if Trinity wanted him there are now others making those calls.

Personally I think Kear has given Ben a decent run, you probably feel different - however that's not the issue anymore, the issue is whether he fits into the plans of the new set up and it would appear he doesn't or at least not at a rate that appeals to Ben. It's sad and not something I wanted to see but it's how it works, I hope Ben does very well at Salford and reaches his full potential.

Where am I wrong, I've tried to be balanced with the info available.

You are wrong on the money front mostly. We are not talking about who picks the team either, I am talking about the conjecture as to reasons as to why or why not he may be leaving. Some clubs are run very professionally and some are not. I do not question your opinion on potential, ability or much else simply with your reasoning which I think is way off the mark and insulting. Apathy and professionalism are dissapointing to say the least.

Re: Looks like : Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:45 pm  

John Kear is definitely having no input into recruitment or retention of players that is true however that doesn't exonerate him from being partially to blame for Ben Gledhills lack of development and rumoured departure.

I'll state right now that I don't know why Bens leaving, I merely want to point out that there are many ways in which different people could have contributed to his departure and thus could be to blame.

Since his promising debut against HKR it's been evident that there was great potential in Ben, what he needed was a development programme that included a greater game based knowledge, specificity coaching as a front rower, nutritional advice and most importantly a conditioning programme that would add 18 to 20 pounds of lean muscle to his frame.

The first thing we do not know is whether JK identified what was required, secondly did JK instruct his back room team of Paul Broadbent & Colin Sanctuary to formulate and deliver the relevant programme and if so did Ben Gledhill commit to and follow it.

If JK failed to do his part of this then yes he is at fault for Bens lack of progress and departure.

If he did identify the above and order the required development programme and Paul Broadbent alongside Colin Sanctuary failed to make it happen then the fault still lies with JK for not intervening, finding out why and ensuring it was done.

If the back room team are incapable of devising and delivering such an individualised programme (highly unlikely) then the fault still lies with JK because he assembled his team and is ultimately responsible for their failings.

If the development programme was put in place and Ben failed to physiologically respond to the programme (unlikely) this would be identified very early and the programme should be reassessed and adjusted accordingly. If this didn't happen then the fault lies with PB & CS and therefore ultimately with JK.

The only scenario where JK bares no responsibility is if Ben Gledhill refused to undertake such a development programme or wouldn't sufficiently commit to it. If that were the case then Why would JK continue to pick him for 1st team duties.

JK cannot be exonerated just because he offered Ben Gledhill more opportunities at 1st team level. There is a responsibility with the coaching team to do what's best for the individuals under their guidance, a duty of care. Young men, athletes place their trust in the coaching team and will for the most part follow their instruction with blind faith.

With hindsight players may reflect on their development and be unsatisfied with the advice they've been given and may choose to leave their club in search of something they feel would be more beneficial to them and their careers. That is their choice but on the path to that choice they are influenced by the advice and development they've received along the way.

For that reason the coaching staff may well bear some blame for the loss of that player!

Re: Looks like : Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:12 pm  

[quote="vastman"]But Kears not in charge any more and hasn't been for a while. Yes he picks the team but that's his job, if the club don't like it then get rid. It's too easy just to blame Kear. Why haen't the club stepped in and convinced Gledhill to stay - answer money. Why isn't Gledhill willing to stay and take his chances under a new coach - answer money. Unlike Trout and Spiers I think Gledhill has had plenty of chances to impress and hasn't, can't really fault Kear with this one as I wouldn't have picked him either on performances.

There are a number of players who have been allowed to stagnate I agree but Gledhill is a poor example to use as a proving point - Anekin is a far better example, now that one is criminal when you think Smith, Hickey and Lee get a game.

Come on Chissitt, you've been around and you know how it works.[/quote you got a lot of that right mate for sure john has nothing to do with the players being brought in or retained. if jimmy even bothered to turn up for the meeting with ben gledhill, that might have been a good start. other young players , one of which you have mentioned may also be on their way. can't see the point in jimmy picking and choosing players when we will have a new coach next week. ( on the last 2 applicants i am reliably informed). jimmy is no where near coaching material, especially if he is thinking of bringing ewan dowes in when we let even better players than him go.at tha moment we have some fantastic youth players and some great squad players. we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. as for john, best of luck with your new job, i am sure you will do better than whats being done now

Re: Looks like : Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:01 pm  

[quote="frogcat"]
reckon Trout will be next to go then

Re: Looks like : Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:41 am  

I am sure the truth of the whole Gledhill saga will come out soon enough and people are probably keeping quiet until it is all sorted once and for all.

One thing I do know is in the past alot of the youth were restricted to 1st team games due to bonuses that were agreed in their contract for number of appearances etc. For example £5000 bonus for making 10 first team games and so on.