Did the Board sack the wrong man?

[Iain]

I think the board made a far too simplistic conclusion. It may well have been time to part amicably with Cockerill, but that wasn't the only issue. I'm not sure anyone can put their finger on exactly what's going on.

[rdracup]

I think the board made a far too simplistic conclusion. It may well have been time to part amicably with Cockerill, but that wasn't the only issue. I'm not sure anyone can put their finger on exactly what's going on.

I don't thing the BoD did make a simplistic conclusion. People seem to assume AM is the future as anointed by the BoD. The BoD have not said anything about his future. Clearly if AM gets some monumentally positive results then he gets in the frame. On the evidence available so far (played 3 - lost 3 with only 40 mins of anything nearing acceptable performance (at Wasps)) that seems highly unlikely. The BoD rightly concluded RC was part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Until RC went the BoD could not actively seek a replacement. RC's position would have become untenable in the circumstances where he was in charge but the BoD was seeking a replacement even if not publicly doing so. This way the whole of the rugby world know the post is available. It will improve the list of candidates.

The BoD I think concluded that we could not win the AP, nor the Champions Cup, but would make the top 6 without RC. They now have 8 months to change things for next season. In the meantime AM and the team deserve all our support in what will be yet another disappointing season, like the last 4 that RC was in charge.

[jgriffin]

"the last 4" by my reckoning would include 2012-13, or even 2011-12 if you count this one as incomplete due to departure of said RC. Some clubs would kill for that sort of failure.

[rdracup]

"the last 4" by my reckoning would include 2012-13, or even 2011-12 if you count this one as incomplete due to departure of said RC. Some clubs would kill for that sort of failure.

Including this season it is perhaps 3 rather than 4 but past glory 4 years ago is not sustaining, at least not for me. And we are not "some club". If we all reset our expectations to, say, the record of Saints or Quins in the past few years then perhaps we would all be so much happier and relaxed about our current status.

If you buy into the sugar daddy argument then I guess we will have to accept our mid table future.... but I didn't see a sugar daddy in the crowd at Munster or Glasgow.. or indeed Leinster when they beat Saints so I don't buy that argument.

[ourla]

If you buy into the sugar daddy argument then I guess we will have to accept our mid table future.... but I didn't see a sugar daddy in the crowd at Munster or Glasgow.. or indeed Leinster when they beat Saints so I don't buy that argument.

They are financed/owned by their Unions. That is their sugar daddy. Though the Scottish would be happy to sell out it seems. Agree with you though, finance isn't the whole story.

[rdracup]

I agree Union funding/central contracting is different, but it is not sugar daddy equivalence...

I do think that some move against the sugar daddy clubs should come in due course, for instance like in football to play in Europe a club over a 3 year period has to break even, (excluding academy spending and stadium improvement).

However I do not see why under the current Tigers business model we can't at least compete at the very highest level.

Our problems extend well beyond squad funding issues.

[ourla]

I agree Union funding/central contracting is different, but it is not sugar daddy equivalence...

In a way it is because the clubs aren't self funding. Somebody is giving them money with no expected financial return. The private owner or union could, if they wanted to spend a few million on a new training facility or some new backroom staff. A club like Tigers would have to fund that through increased revenue or raise it through shareholders.

I do think that some move against the sugar daddy clubs should come in due course, for instance like in football to play in Europe a club over a 3 year period has to break even, (excluding academy spending and stadium improvement).

If you look back a few years ago Tigers were sitting pretty. But we were on our own. The funding of the likes of Sarries, Bath, Wasps, the French clubs is supported by the majority because it's the only way they can with us. If they all kept to the ethos of self funding we'd have very little competition. It's an inevitability of professionalism. Of course, as football discovered, eventually that model generates a financial arms race and has to be curtailed. One of the best models of course is the NFL.

However I do not see why under the current Tigers business model we can't at least compete at the very highest level. Our problems extend well beyond squad funding issues.

Despite everything we've been hanging in there but I agree the use of resources has been at least a little inadequate over the last couple 2.5 seasons at least.

[mol2]

If we accept the salary cap is being observed by all. (I have my doubts but others here argue it's easy to enforce) Therefore there should be no reason for us not to be competitive assuming the recruitment policy is sound and the coaching structure is sound.

The facilities may not be perfect but that applies to all teams from the day the new facilities come into use. Unless they are hopeless that's not the rate limiting factor.

Our problem lies with those that sign the players, coach them, select the team and decide the tactic (should be tactics but it's a long time since we had a plan B)

The whole situation can be likened the overbreeding of dogs, the whole coaching team bred from within and in real need of new blood to put the mongrel back into the team.

[rdracup]

The whole situation can be likened the overbreeding of dogs, the whole coaching team bred from within and in real need of new blood to put the mongrel back into the team.

Entirely agree. There is an over reliance on Tigers experience as a key criteria in any appointment. There is a need to have an club "ethos" but to think there is some magic Tigers DNA that will help us repeat past glories is a big mistake. To (mis-)quote a recently elected politician - "we are going to make Tigers great again with our Tigers first policy". Meanwhile the rest of the world will keep advancing... such as the Pro12 teams, Sarries,Wasps, Exeter and the top French teams. Resources play a part but what they also do is they look outwards for new ideas, and to be freshly challenged. Not us... the team huddle under the posts after a try has been scored against us - which never changes anything is a metaphor for how we can fix things from within. It isn't and it won't.

[h's dad]

If we accept the salary cap is being observed by all. (I have my doubts but others here argue it's easy to enforce)

Oh mol2, I thought you would be too smart to adopt such a false conflation. I'm not sure that anybody, including the PRL accepts that the salary cap is being observed. I think it is also generally accepted that the PRL has sufficient evidence of the required standard (see regulations) to enforce the penalties for breach. What is lacking is the will to do so. Where I may be wrong is in thinking that if it was Leicester Tigers in such a position, the book would most likely be thrown.

[mol2]

Not quite, I just didn't want to hijack this thread into a salary cap debate.

I think I have made my views that the salary cap is/has in all probability been breached (many times in the past on this forum) but been shot down by those who don't believe that the league couldn't prove it. Yes the reality is the league don't have the collective willingness to act in a meaningful way in response to the breaches they have identified or have reasonable grounds to suspect.

However our woes are not simply salary related and whilst it may well be difficult for sides to compete with the Sugar Daddy clubs and those funded by their national unions, we have hardly shone against sides with significantly less resources than us. Indeed the manner of defeat is the concern. No spirit and not Tigers!

[h's dad]

Not quite, I just didn't want to hijack this thread into a salary cap debate.

I think I have made my views that the salary cap is/has in all probability been breached (many times in the past on this forum) but been shot down by those who don't believe that the league couldn't prove it. Yes the reality is the league don't have the collective willingness to act in a meaningful way in response to the breaches they have identified or have reasonable grounds to suspect.

However our woes are not simply salary related and whilst it may well be difficult for sides to compete with the Sugar Daddy clubs and those funded by their national unions, we have hardly shone against sides with significantly less resources than us. Indeed the manner of defeat is the concern. No spirit and not Tigers!

Again, I don't think anybody has shot down anybody's view that the salary cap has been breached. Regrettably I have to agree with the rest of your post.

[SirGordonRamsey]

After Cockers removal a few facts have come to light and the club is having to be more open about how its spending its money.

"Leicester Tigers 'simply can't spend any more money on players', says Simon Cohen"

I don't recall any articles such as this being published when Cockers was around. Not even when we had Bai and Loamanu covering in the centres.

Ok....

It's now known that the reason for Cockers removal had a big part to do with the difference in coaching/playing style between him, and Mauger.
Mauger wanting a more free flowing southern hemisphere style of rugby, and Cockerill wanting a traditional upfront, set piece concentrated game.

'We spent £500,000 on installing a new pitch to suit style of rugby'

Since Aaron Mauger stepped in to 'help', Eddie Jones has taken post as England's head couch.

As quoted by Dan Cole, 'Eddie doesn't make us play like Australia'.

Eddie Jones has modernised English rugby, yet Tigers have ambitions to play like Australia?

[Doghashadhisday]

'We spent £500,000 on installing a new pitch to suit style of rugby'

Eddie Jones has modernised English rugby, yet Tigers have ambitions to play like Australia?

I think Mauger would be very upset with you suggesting Tigers have ambitions to play like Australia!

[Noddy555]

I don't think that the new pitch or any style of playing has to do with our current slump, but more to with the fact that our star players are injured or suffering a simultaneous slump in form and that their replacements are mediocre and not of premiership standard.