Discussion about the leadership team has progressed way beyond this forum, and generally I hear mixed reviews. More qauestions than affirmation.

One thing we can all agree upon there is no perfect solution. And it is Neelds privilege to choose who he wants.

However he did declare that the slate was clean. I would now doubt it. Many obviously had black marks against their name from past history. The clearest example is Moloney. At the prime of his career. The lead in the engine room, spiritual motivater etc. He was one for whom the slate was not clean. His past black mark was still squarely emblazoned across his forehead.

The confusion for many is that a couple on the leadership group, got a soft entry, for the criteria must have been relatively restricted. Supporters are sick of the 'good guy' leader who is extremely limited in skills, eg. Miller.

Apart from those who have unwaivering affirmation for the limited Bartram, this does leave most baffled. Make a list of the backs or mids and it is very hard to see how he will complete the year. If he is still there by the end of the year many of our young hopefulls will not have improved as we expect.

I refute the clean slate.

I would have made different selections, as many others would. There are probably a dozen different combinations people would present. Neelds is one and his prerogative to choose. We all live with it.

Clean slate? no way.

You would prefer more of the same HR...?

Lets just say some peoples slates are cleaner than others .Still think the choice/s were good .Beamer will live with it .He's still a leader .

How did this topic get here of all places ? In the help section ?

Silly question.