Kris Radlinski

[Sutty]

Speak to those members of staff who report directly to Rad's and get their view. Not just playing and coaching staff but those who he manages directly.

I'd rather take their word for how good a leader he is, how infectious his energy and enthusiasm is and how he keeps them motivated, over some people on a forum who have never spent any real amount of time with him, let alone worked with/for him

I have seen the exact opposite posted elsewhere that plenty of staff at the DW do not like IL & Rads one bit.

My best mate, who I've known for 40 years, is the Financial Controller at the club and he can't speak highly enough of the energy, enthusiasm and motivation that Rad's brings to the club.

[NICKYKISS]

I’d be careful what we wish for when it comes to a change of leadership. KR can only work with the budget he’s given and he isn’t the only man who gets a say on the signings. The signs in regards retention and recruitment for next year look extremely positive. The connection between the club and the fans is being driven by him and Peet and the classy touches the club constantly shows around opposition players milestones, charity events etc are lead by him. Is he perfect? No, nobody is but I tell you what, we could do far worse. If you want to look at the type of CE we could be lumbered with instead, have a look over Warrington way. That is an absolute car crash!

I personally hope Rads is here for a good while yet and back him, Wane, Peet and co to get us back in front of St Helens (and whoever else).

The signings for next year are positive but you'd have to have your head in the sand not to see these are of a different standard to signing players like Thornley and others that have been made over recent seasons. The same applies to those rumoured to be leaving the club. In the past it has given out new deals to players who should be retiring or who when they got to the end of their contracts should have just been let go.

Radlinski has been in the thick of all that it and our recruitment and retention has been a major reason why we have played second fiddle to Saints so some of the blame at least must stick to him given his job title is CEO and what that is supposed to entail. We went years without two centres and only got King because Wire couldn't git him under their cap. We were also offered Cooper and didn't actively recruit him when we really needed a prop like him. There is a long list of recruitment cock-ups.

The press release Radlinski put out by him detailing the Bateman saga was unbelievably unprofessional not least because it described the total fiasco surrounding his exit blow by blow. A litany of excuses from start to finish.

So for me there is plenty of evidence he is right out of his depth and what state Warrington are in is not an endorsement of Radlinski.

As to the "the classy touches the club constantly shows around opposition players milestones" that is just soft and needs to stop.

Some of the signings under his leadership haven’t always worked but I go back to 2 things. 1-He isn’t solely responsible for choosing who we sign and 2-he can only work within a budget he is given by the owner. Does he take some responsibility for signings that haven’t worked (although a back up centre in Thornley isn’t an example I’d use)? Of course he does but so do Peet, Lam, Wane, Lenagan and whoever else has been involved. There have been plenty of success stories as well.

Wires situation isn’t an endorsement for Rads but it’s a real life example of how bad things can be done, even if you don’t send bottles of whisky around and you have unlimited resources to work with. As for the classy touches being ‘soft’, well you’re entitled to your opinion but if they can’t be man enough to offer a gesture of respect, to great rivals down the years, then I think that would be ‘soft’ and it would actually show a weaker mindset than being humble enough to acknowledge them.

A change of ownership brings a time of uncertainty for everyone involved with a club. Mike Danson seems a very private person and somebody who is willing to sit in the background. In those circumstances we need continuity IMO, especially at a time when it feels like the club/team is generally on an upward curve, after what was an iffy period after Waney left. Maybe it won’t work out and in a year or twos time a change will be needed and I’ll throw my hands up. If things do go well, I expect you’ll be the first to admit what a good job Rads has done though, so we’ll see how we go.

[josie andrews]

I’d be careful what we wish for when it comes to a change of leadership. KR can only work with the budget he’s given and he isn’t the only man who gets a say on the signings. The signs in regards retention and recruitment for next year look extremely positive. The connection between the club and the fans is being driven by him and Peet and the classy touches the club constantly shows around opposition players milestones, charity events etc are lead by him. Is he perfect? No, nobody is but I tell you what, we could do far worse. If you want to look at the type of CE we could be lumbered with instead, have a look over Warrington way. That is an absolute car crash!

I personally hope Rads is here for a good while yet and back him, Wane, Peet and co to get us back in front of St Helens (and whoever else).

The signings for next year are positive but you'd have to have your head in the sand not to see these are of a different standard to signing players like Thornley and others that have been made over recent seasons. The same applies to those rumoured to be leaving the club. In the past it has given out new deals to players who should be retiring or who when they got to the end of their contracts should have just been let go.

Radlinski has been in the thick of all that it and our recruitment and retention has been a major reason why we have played second fiddle to Saints so some of the blame at least must stick to him given his job title is CEO and what that is supposed to entail. We went years without two centres and only got King because Wire couldn't git him under their cap. We were also offered Cooper and didn't actively recruit him when we really needed a prop like him. There is a long list of recruitment cock-ups.

The press release Radlinski put out by him detailing the Bateman saga was unbelievably unprofessional not least because it described the total fiasco surrounding his exit blow by blow. A litany of excuses from start to finish.

So for me there is plenty of evidence he is right out of his depth and what state Warrington are in is not an endorsement of Radlinski.

As to the "the classy touches the club constantly shows around opposition players milestones" that is just soft and needs to stop.

Some of the signings under his leadership haven’t always worked but I go back to 2 things. 1-He isn’t solely responsible for choosing who we sign and 2-he can only work within a budget he is given by the owner. Does he take some responsibility for signings that haven’t worked (although a back up centre in Thornley isn’t an example I’d use)? Of course he does but so do Peet, Lam, Wane, Lenagan and whoever else has been involved. There have been plenty of success stories as well.

Wires situation isn’t an endorsement for Rads but it’s a real life example of how bad things can be done, even if you don’t send bottles of whisky around and you have unlimited resources to work with. As for the classy touches being ‘soft’, well you’re entitled to your opinion but if they can’t be man enough to offer a gesture of respect, to great rivals down the years, then I think that would be ‘soft’ and it would actually show a weaker mindset than being humble enough to acknowledge them.

A change of ownership brings a time of uncertainty for everyone involved with a club. Mike Danson seems a very private person and somebody who is willing to sit in the background. In those circumstances we need continuity IMO, especially at a time when it feels like the club/team is generally on an upward curve, after what was an iffy period after Waney left. Maybe it won’t work out and in a year or twos time a change will be needed and I’ll throw my hands up. If things do go well, I expect you’ll be the first to admit what a good job Rads has done though, so we’ll see how we go.

Not only you think it’s not ‘soft’ but a ‘touch of class’ to acknowledge other clubs players career milestones & referees too.

The recipients are humbled to be acknowledged by a rival club!

[bertina]

I’d be careful what we wish for when it comes to a change of leadership. KR can only work with the budget he’s given and he isn’t the only man who gets a say on the signings. The signs in regards retention and recruitment for next year look extremely positive. The connection between the club and the fans is being driven by him and Peet and the classy touches the club constantly shows around opposition players milestones, charity events etc are lead by him. Is he perfect? No, nobody is but I tell you what, we could do far worse. If you want to look at the type of CE we could be lumbered with instead, have a look over Warrington way. That is an absolute car crash!

I personally hope Rads is here for a good while yet and back him, Wane, Peet and co to get us back in front of St Helens (and whoever else).

Well said.!!

[fozzieskem]

I just don’t get the resentment towards Radlinski has he made errors yes but he’s human but certainly not as bad as some on here make,our,sometimes it’s better the devil you know,as Kylie once sang

[morley pie eater]

To be honest, I like Rads and accept that no-one is perfect and that he's been learning on the job.

Leneghan has run a football club, the Football League (I think, but don't follow the game), and his successful businesses. I also trust that he knows about people when recruiting, especially those he's going to put at the top of an organisation in which he's invested money and more. So another tick for Rads.

I could however see the pov of earlier posters with doubts about KR. The whisky incident sounds amateurish rather than bad, and I'd discount it. Recruitment would surely be done by consultation with coaches, owner and others, so putting all the blame on Rads is unfair. The improvement under Peet is noticeable too, suggesting previous coaches were more responsible for mistakes than Rads.

DaveO's vicious tone pushes me in the opposite direction.

Rad's one negative for me was his handling of the Joel Tomkins saga, where he clearly, in my view, tried to cover it up until it came to light on social media. However, I'm sure he's a good bloke and lessons will have been learned, so overall it a definite Yes from me.

[DaveO]

I’d be careful what we wish for when it comes to a change of leadership. KR can only work with the budget he’s given and he isn’t the only man who gets a say on the signings. The signs in regards retention and recruitment for next year look extremely positive. The connection between the club and the fans is being driven by him and Peet and the classy touches the club constantly shows around opposition players milestones, charity events etc are lead by him. Is he perfect? No, nobody is but I tell you what, we could do far worse. If you want to look at the type of CE we could be lumbered with instead, have a look over Warrington way. That is an absolute car crash!

I personally hope Rads is here for a good while yet and back him, Wane, Peet and co to get us back in front of St Helens (and whoever else).

The signings for next year are positive but you'd have to have your head in the sand not to see these are of a different standard to signing players like Thornley and others that have been made over recent seasons. The same applies to those rumoured to be leaving the club. In the past it has given out new deals to players who should be retiring or who when they got to the end of their contracts should have just been let go.

Radlinski has been in the thick of all that it and our recruitment and retention has been a major reason why we have played second fiddle to Saints so some of the blame at least must stick to him given his job title is CEO and what that is supposed to entail. We went years without two centres and only got King because Wire couldn't git him under their cap. We were also offered Cooper and didn't actively recruit him when we really needed a prop like him. There is a long list of recruitment cock-ups.

The press release Radlinski put out by him detailing the Bateman saga was unbelievably unprofessional not least because it described the total fiasco surrounding his exit blow by blow. A litany of excuses from start to finish.

So for me there is plenty of evidence he is right out of his depth and what state Warrington are in is not an endorsement of Radlinski.

As to the "the classy touches the club constantly shows around opposition players milestones" that is just soft and needs to stop.

Some of the signings under his leadership haven’t always worked but I go back to 2 things. 1-He isn’t solely responsible for choosing who we sign and 2-he can only work within a budget he is given by the owner. Does he take some responsibility for signings that haven’t worked (although a back up centre in Thornley isn’t an example I’d use)? Of course he does but so do Peet, Lam, Wane, Lenagan and whoever else has been involved. There have been plenty of success stories as well.

There have been two constants over that period, IL & Rads. The coaches don't decide on who is paid what and who ultimately comes through the door and I thought this was common knowledge. They have some input but why would any coach want a player like Thornley in his squad? Heck the coaches don't even get to choose their back room staff/assistants (it's why Edwards got cold feet). In my opinion the club has been run top-down with IL & Rads calling the shots.

Wires situation isn’t an endorsement for Rads but it’s a real life example of how bad things can be done, even if you don’t send bottles of whisky around and you have unlimited resources to work with. As for the classy touches being ‘soft’, well you’re entitled to your opinion but if they can’t be man enough to offer a gesture of respect, to great rivals down the years, then I think that would be ‘soft’ and it would actually show a weaker mindset than being humble enough to acknowledge them.

I am sure there are badly run clubs but it really isn't an argument to say our recruitment/retention has been poor but oh look someone else's has been worse. As to the Whisky thing I really don't get it. They are publicising opposition players and clubs.

A change of ownership brings a time of uncertainty for everyone involved with a club. Mike Danson seems a very private person and somebody who is willing to sit in the background. In those circumstances we need continuity IMO, especially at a time when it feels like the club/team is generally on an upward curve, after what was an iffy period after Waney left. Maybe it won’t work out and in a year or twos time a change will be needed and I’ll throw my hands up. If things do go well, I expect you’ll be the first to admit what a good job Rads has done though, so we’ll see how we go.

It's rare for CEO's to get the boot immediately but after the new ownership and board has taken stock and decided what to do it can happen. CEO at the company I work for rose through the ranks and was booted out a few months back after 39 years service (not all as CEO obviously) but only a few months after a new board was constituted. Rads strikes me as a survivor so if they sidelined him and offered him the job of giving bottles of whisky to opposition players and nothing else I am sure he'd take it.

[Caboosegg]

A coach should never decide how much s player is paid though. A coach isnt trained in fincial forecasting and doesn't track the cap.

Your also twisting to fit your view again.
The coaches do have a say who comes through the door, what they don't have is the final call and this will be the same every club. Both Wane and Peet have said they are consulted.

And it's interesting that despite Edwards changing his story a few times including about his union offers you choose to belive the version to fit a narrative?

Even if it was true your aware of contracts of employment? While coaches will have clauses I doubt a physio or medical staff will have such loose employment protections.

Your articulate your points like a politician, opinions are strewed as fact and they are written well enough that unless someone is willing to spend the time fact finding totally believable.

That isn't an insult, btw it's a skill.

[NICKYKISS]

The signings for next year are positive but you'd have to have your head in the sand not to see these are of a different standard to signing players like Thornley and others that have been made over recent seasons. The same applies to those rumoured to be leaving the club. In the past it has given out new deals to players who should be retiring or who when they got to the end of their contracts should have just been let go.

Radlinski has been in the thick of all that it and our recruitment and retention has been a major reason why we have played second fiddle to Saints so some of the blame at least must stick to him given his job title is CEO and what that is supposed to entail. We went years without two centres and only got King because Wire couldn't git him under their cap. We were also offered Cooper and didn't actively recruit him when we really needed a prop like him. There is a long list of recruitment cock-ups.

The press release Radlinski put out by him detailing the Bateman saga was unbelievably unprofessional not least because it described the total fiasco surrounding his exit blow by blow. A litany of excuses from start to finish.

So for me there is plenty of evidence he is right out of his depth and what state Warrington are in is not an endorsement of Radlinski.

As to the "the classy touches the club constantly shows around opposition players milestones" that is just soft and needs to stop.

Some of the signings under his leadership haven’t always worked but I go back to 2 things. 1-He isn’t solely responsible for choosing who we sign and 2-he can only work within a budget he is given by the owner. Does he take some responsibility for signings that haven’t worked (although a back up centre in Thornley isn’t an example I’d use)? Of course he does but so do Peet, Lam, Wane, Lenagan and whoever else has been involved. There have been plenty of success stories as well.

There have been two constants over that period, IL & Rads. The coaches don't decide on who is paid what and who ultimately comes through the door and I thought this was common knowledge. They have some input but why would any coach want a player like Thornley in his squad? Heck the coaches don't even get to choose their back room staff/assistants (it's why Edwards got cold feet). In my opinion the club has been run top-down with IL & Rads calling the shots.

Wires situation isn’t an endorsement for Rads but it’s a real life example of how bad things can be done, even if you don’t send bottles of whisky around and you have unlimited resources to work with. As for the classy touches being ‘soft’, well you’re entitled to your opinion but if they can’t be man enough to offer a gesture of respect, to great rivals down the years, then I think that would be ‘soft’ and it would actually show a weaker mindset than being humble enough to acknowledge them.

I am sure there are badly run clubs but it really isn't an argument to say our recruitment/retention has been poor but oh look someone else's has been worse. As to the Whisky thing I really don't get it. They are publicising opposition players and clubs.

A change of ownership brings a time of uncertainty for everyone involved with a club. Mike Danson seems a very private person and somebody who is willing to sit in the background. In those circumstances we need continuity IMO, especially at a time when it feels like the club/team is generally on an upward curve, after what was an iffy period after Waney left. Maybe it won’t work out and in a year or twos time a change will be needed and I’ll throw my hands up. If things do go well, I expect you’ll be the first to admit what a good job Rads has done though, so we’ll see how we go.

It's rare for CEO's to get the boot immediately but after the new ownership and board has taken stock and decided what to do it can happen. CEO at the company I work for rose through the ranks and was booted out a few months back after 39 years service (not all as CEO obviously) but only a few months after a new board was constituted. Rads strikes me as a survivor so if they sidelined him and offered him the job of giving bottles of whisky to opposition players and nothing else I am sure he'd take it.

As I said in my last post, we’ll see how we go. The job comes with praise and criticism. You’re more than willing to hand out the latter, so presumably you’ll hand out praise ‘if’ any success comes (we’ll ignore the fact we won one of the two major trophies on offer last year and start from now).

[Flash]

Some of the signings under his leadership haven’t always worked but I go back to 2 things. 1-He isn’t solely responsible for choosing who we sign and 2-he can only work within a budget he is given by the owner. Does he take some responsibility for signings that haven’t worked (although a back up centre in Thornley isn’t an example I’d use)? Of course he does but so do Peet, Lam, Wane, Lenagan and whoever else has been involved. There have been plenty of success stories as well.

There have been two constants over that period, IL & Rads. The coaches don't decide on who is paid what and who ultimately comes through the door and I thought this was common knowledge. They have some input but why would any coach want a player like Thornley in his squad? Heck the coaches don't even get to choose their back room staff/assistants (it's why Edwards got cold feet). In my opinion the club has been run top-down with IL & Rads calling the shots.

Wires situation isn’t an endorsement for Rads but it’s a real life example of how bad things can be done, even if you don’t send bottles of whisky around and you have unlimited resources to work with. As for the classy touches being ‘soft’, well you’re entitled to your opinion but if they can’t be man enough to offer a gesture of respect, to great rivals down the years, then I think that would be ‘soft’ and it would actually show a weaker mindset than being humble enough to acknowledge them.

I am sure there are badly run clubs but it really isn't an argument to say our recruitment/retention has been poor but oh look someone else's has been worse. As to the Whisky thing I really don't get it. They are publicising opposition players and clubs.

A change of ownership brings a time of uncertainty for everyone involved with a club. Mike Danson seems a very private person and somebody who is willing to sit in the background. In those circumstances we need continuity IMO, especially at a time when it feels like the club/team is generally on an upward curve, after what was an iffy period after Waney left. Maybe it won’t work out and in a year or twos time a change will be needed and I’ll throw my hands up. If things do go well, I expect you’ll be the first to admit what a good job Rads has done though, so we’ll see how we go.

It's rare for CEO's to get the boot immediately but after the new ownership and board has taken stock and decided what to do it can happen. CEO at the company I work for rose through the ranks and was booted out a few months back after 39 years service (not all as CEO obviously) but only a few months after a new board was constituted. Rads strikes me as a survivor so if they sidelined him and offered him the job of giving bottles of whisky to opposition players and nothing else I am sure he'd take it.

As I said in my last post, we’ll see how we go. The job comes with praise and criticism. You’re more than willing to hand out the latter, so presumably you’ll hand out praise ‘if’ any success comes (we’ll ignore the fact we won one of the two major trophies on offer last year and start from now).

I wouldn't hold your breath mate!