In the Daily Telegraph today " Our future and our savior" sic, that's what they call Arthur!, revealed that they who decide these things had informed him that he was the man for the job meaning the coaching job. It seems he was told this at or near the beginning of the year. Hence, the claim that our administration was testing the situation and would decide in June who the coach would be was a sham and a lie. It was a done deal from the beginning. Those responsible for this should be sacked or should walk.
Who was responsible for this? Was the administrator aware of this? Was the Chairman involved or aware of this? Was the CEO involved? Were the directors involved?
This is such an odd thing I think the NRL and the Integrity unit should be informed.
Replies
No Robert, they told him they BELIEVED he was the man for the job, he still had to prove it, wether he did enough or not is debatable.
Firstly, you believe what the Daily Astonisher publishes ?
Secondly, so what if they did. It's between BA and the club, it's none of your business.
Thirdly, why should they be sacked ?
Finally, I seriously doubt the Integrity Unit, or the NRL at large give a rats.
More like flogged or racked! After allowing a 64-10 embarrassment!
The club had been in negotiations with BA since the 51-6 win on Easter Monday
Well they can't even spell saviour. Did they get the year 10 work experience guy write it?
He's here for at least 2 more seasons. Deal with it!