I agree with spartan and boonboon on this one. I have been really impressed with Humph over the past 12 hours or so. He speaks logic and answers any question thrown at him with confidence and professionalism. I think he offered Sheens a 3 year deal because he believed Sheens was the best man for the job. We had just made the semis 2 years in a row.
I didn't want Sheens resigned and I was not impressed with the handling of the Moltzen affair either, but everybody new to their position will make some judgemental errors irrespective of the seniorority of their position. We could have kept Lui and lost sponsors instead - which was the better outcome?
When this position was available I wanted it to go to John Brogden. Very capable individual whom I believe would have steered our club well. I find Humph to be a similar type of person. It cannot be easy dealing with all the different factions involved in the merger, together with supporters, coaching staff and players but I think he has held himself quite well.
I think we should cut him a little slack and judge him over team and club performance over the next 2 years, without the influence of Tim Sheens (should Tim elect to leave).
