Assistant Coach after Flanno

shouldn’t we scout or have people apply for the position rather than promoting the waterboy and getting some dreg from Newcastle who ****ed us once to be the new water boy.

Wow, it actually does sound manly to me and not in the anatomical sense.
 
shouldn’t we scout or have people apply for the position rather than promoting the waterboy and getting some dreg from Newcastle who ****ed us once to be the new water boy.
I actually have a copy of the application form right here, joeboy! It consists of three questions:

1. Would you describe yourself as aspirational?
2. If success is not a straight line, what is it?
3. Are you managed by Isaac Moses?
 
Blake Green. To replace an experienced Premiership winner. What could go wrong.
Rather than have a dig at Green, ask why if Flanagan was the best alternative (to Hasler) on offer, he wasn’t given the head coaching role ahead of Seibold. If Seibold is so good, why did he need a former first grade coach as his assistant to hold his hand. Pathetic.

That’s the issue here, gambling on the dream (to date) that is Seibold, rather than the results-based history of Flanagan. With seven rounds to go in Seibold’s first season at Manly, it’s already looking like a slow-moving train wreck.

Someone has to take the blame for hiring Seibold (if this current experiment implodes) and it will not be Penn. Hello Mr Mestrov!

Better yet, just hang onto Hasler. However we all know why that didn’t happen.
 
Last edited:
I actually have a copy of the application form right here, joeboy! It consists of three questions:

1. Would you describe yourself as aspirational?
2. If success is not a straight line, what is it?
3. Are you managed by Isaac Moses?
You left out :
4. Most importantly, are you able to mouth sweet nothings to a clueless owner and a (new to the job) credulous CEO, who are united in their hatred of the former coach?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

  • Jethro
    Star Trekkin' across the universe

Members online

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
1 1 0 36 2
1 1 0 30 2
1 1 0 22 2
1 1 0 8 2
1 1 0 6 2
1 1 0 2 2
1 1 0 2 2
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 -2 0
1 0 1 -2 0
1 0 1 -6 0
1 0 1 -8 0
1 0 1 -22 0
1 0 1 -30 0
1 0 1 -36 0
Back
Top Bottom