Do South actually need to appoint a replacement coach?

[pipers]

This might sound like a joke question, but in many respects it isn't...

Given that it seems that the players call the shots and that the board never back their man anyway why not just take this simple 3-step approach:

1. Ask the playing squad who intends on staying at the club in 2009 and into 2010. Get those who say yes to sign on for 2 years now.

2. Tell the rest to f*ck off now then.

3. Selection & gameplan is dead easy. There would only be about 18 blokes left, so team selection is not required. Game plan is simple. Kick it to Warren and let Gerrard marshall the defence to minimise the damage at the other end.

[Booney]

This might sound like a joke question

There in lies the reason for lack of responses.It doesn't sound like one,it isone.

[pipers]

This might sound like a joke question

There in lies the reason for lack of responses.It doesn't sound like one,it isone.

OK, maybe Pt 3 was a bit flippant, but surely 1 & 2 should be done sooner rather than later. And while ideally you want the coach to have a big say in the playing personnel, and you would normally wait until a replacement was appointed before starting the cull, perhaps at South at the moment that is just not possible.

[westcoastpanther]

Best part of the South joke is we could still manage to beat Port on their own dungheap......was thinking of you mate

[JK]

Fatal, surely no. 1 is a joke aswell? Why would you want to sign players before you have a coach who may well walk in and decide some of them don't fit the plans he might have? Just setting yourself up for contract termination payouts.

[pipers]

Best part of the South joke is we could still manage to beat Port on their own dungheap......was thinking of you mate

Yes, but that was when you were the real deal.

[pipers]

Fatal, surely no. 1 is a joke aswell? Why would you want to sign players before you have a coach who may well walk in and decide some of them don't fit the plans he might have? Just setting yourself up for contract termination payouts.

Depends on whether the new coach has any say in recruiting and selection. South's history suggests that the administration back the players 11 times out of 10, so if a coach wanted to kick some guys out he's likely to end up out the door himself.

Also depends on whether you appoint a coach to build a team from scratch, or to get the most out of the current playing group.

And if you don't actually appoint a coach at all, then it's a moot point anyway...

[JK]

Fatal, surely no. 1 is a joke aswell? Why would you want to sign players before you have a coach who may well walk in and decide some of them don't fit the plans he might have? Just setting yourself up for contract termination payouts.

Depends on whether the new coach has any say in recruiting and selection. South's history suggests that the administration back the players 11 times out of 10, so if a coach wanted to kick some guys out he's likely to end up out the door himself.

Also depends on whether you appoint a coach to build a team from scratch, or to get the most out of the current playing group.

And if you don't actually appoint a coach at all, then it's a moot point anyway...

LOL All of which means that South (or any club for that matter) would be screwed under those circumstances ... Next thread!

[Blue Boy]

I rekon it would be hard to take on that job !!!