Firstly, how great to have not just an article for the site, but one by Chris. Many thanks my friend.
I don't agree with much of it but can see how it could be 100% true.
To my feeble mind, the game has moved both on and off the pitch. We need something different without losing that which defines our club. Our club has been successful because of its key values, we won stuff because of them rather than generated the values through having won.
We have a long and proud history but the dominance that most of us have grown up with, started with th Chalkie White era wher the team was coached to win off 30% possession as we ha a relatively weak forward game. That success enabled us to attract and develop better forwards and it snowballed.
Most now regard the successes of the post Dwyer era as being entirely down to 10 man rugby, utter tosh, albeit the pack was the enabler.
Today we see the forward game emasculated by law changes and a blank refusal of referees to enforce the laws as they stand. Success now has to be gained by skills outside the set piece from 1 to 23. A dominant scrum is no longer the game winner it once was.
Change was and is necessary, whether Aaron will be successful will be seen. I hope so.
At the risk of repeating myself, it was obvious [must have been if I saw it] at the birth of the plumpyship that money would one day destroy the game we love as it has with association football. It's been an exciting ride to here. Playing standards have risen exponentially, but they might just be imploding now - though I might be told I need a hia.
It seems the Tigers ethos I knew has been overtaken by lucre now and the loss of Cocker was the day portended.
''... and the chorus:
odd-shaped vagaries (IP Logged)
02 January, 2017 15:16
With apologies to Don McLean and all my fans:
''So it's bye bye Cockerill, why?
Drove the players to the touchline but they couldn't see why,
Them playing boys tried but there was something awry;
Cockers was Tigers while others just try,
Will this be the day that Tigers die?''
It may be we will go on to be successful in the shiny new world, even dominate it on the back of Suit-gate, but something is gone and is unlikely to return .. depends, I suppose, whether you appreciate the cost or the value.
Good to hear from you again Chris but I believe your musings are a little off target.
My issue with SC and his Commercial Director is their performance in raising revenue and sponsorship as this is what is needed to move the club forward with our business model. Not sure it is seen that there is any under performance in this area though. Should the Tigers business be run by a lawyer rather than a businessman?
The quality of our squad being poor is rubbish. We have the quality but have problems getting them on the pitch and those that we do, getting them performing consistently well. The number and experience of our coaching team has been a problem for several years. Is part of this problem the policy of moving ex-players into the senior coaching positions too early, particularly if they have spent most of their playing career at Tigers?
And I believe you do Ben a disservice when you suggest that no personal friendship exists.
I still believe the wrong man departed though.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2017 11:44 by Yorkie.
Well if he/they have failed in raising revenue they have (again by extension) failed to provide the funds to buy a squad of sufficient quality in depth (and depth is the key word here) We can forget about the imaginary Salary Cap - it doesn't exist other than as an excuse for failing to provide sufficient revenue and/or using it to build vanity projects. Legacy tha' knows?
Who should run the club as CEO? Well on current performance not Cohen. Woodward (much as I personally dislike him or at least my perception of him) maybe. A businessman with roots in rugby would be a good start (and I don't count being an agent as having roots in rugby,although I suppose they do suck the life blood out of the sport).
I'm not sure where, even in my realm of fiction, I have suggested the squad is poor but it does clearly (to me) lack quality in its depth.
Perhaps I should write another fictional piece about an imaginary meeting of an imaginary recruitment committee.
I agree that depth of quality and experience in the coaching set up has been a problem for too long and one that Cohen has, with his board colleagues, manifestly failed to address which is perhaps due to the funds available. promotion from within is usually a much cheaper option.
In my fictional scenario I don't suggest that Ben doesn't have a friendship with Cockers. My fictional directors are just guilty of exploiting it for their own cynical ends.
With respect may I suggest that you read the piece as being a fictional bit of writing (you do realise that Harry Potter's also fictional - don't you? There isn't really a boy wizard)
The role of Ben Kay is certainly a mystery! After one of the earlier season games, maybe Munster, he sits on the panel thing next to Cockers and says something like "now I'm not involved i can say things about the ref". And I thought, that's odd he's on the board, maybe he's quit or doesn't have any say. And then the last week it appears he's very hands on.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing