- Sep 6, 2013
@McHunt does have a valid argument if you accept the premise that recruiting and retention decision making is even to some extent being premised upon ensuring that Skip Walters has a contract with us because Kev is playing some role in that occurring.
If that is happening it is extremely problematic and it becomes even more problematic if the club is not actively seeking a better hooker because of it. There would be no clearer example of a conflict of interest/nepotism than that.
I think (respectfully) where his argument falls down is that Kev (unlike Bennett in the past) does not have the runs on the board in terms of results and premiership experience and the status to be dictating those types of recuriting decisions to the club. I have no doubt that he has input, but I cannot imagine that either Ikin or DD would go along with a recruiting/retention decision that is going to place the club in a weaker position. Their history since coming into their roles is the exact antithesis of this. I think they have just about pulled the right rein with every decision.
The other area where his argument falls down is that I think that Skip has proven that he has a valuable role to play either as a utility or as back up for the halves or a hooker. There is absolutely no reason why we could not contract a better hooker and also keep Billy to fill a utility or a back up role, particularly with Turpin going. Simply because we sign a better hooker does not automatically mean that we must move Walters on.
That is my two cents worth in any event. He is entitled to his view and the point of BHQ is to engender discussion which this is doing.
Agreed, this is the purpose of a forum. However if you put forward a convoluted and not very well articulated argument, you are open game for being shot down when the meaning comes across as nothing like it was apparently supposed to.