Chris Greatholder is not an "interim" or "caretaker" coach.
When Matt Chandler left, the board appointed Chris as the head coach to replace him. He has a contract to this effect.
There is no clause "demanding that [Chris] stick to Chandler's template".
Certainly the board considered that as he was already in the squad he would provide greater continuity of the positive culture that already existed there than might be the case in bringing in someone from outside the squad. But Chris was given a completely free rein, and any student of the beautiful game will confirm that he has clearly made major changes, ranging from playing shape to player starting line-up and many more. Despite repeated assurances to the contrary, the reporter seems fixated on the appointment having been the result of "player power".
The reality is that while the board followed sound business practice and consulted with the senior players, Chris was still in the playing line-up and so was overlooked by the players as a possible head coach.
However, the board saw the potential that Chris has and so appointed him to the role.
And I am sure if the players were asked today they would have him at the top of their list now too.
Chris, and the Hawke's Bay United team, have considerable ability which was again shown by their courage, commitment and skill against Waitakere last weekend, both on and off the park.
They continue to have the full backing and support of the board and we all have every right to be proud of them. Hopefully these corrections will be useful in allowing more accurate reporting of future Hawke's Bay United events.
C'mon the Bay.
Peter Grant, Chairman
Rodeo reassurance
In reply to both Simon Tahau and Jessica Maxwell's views on rodeos I would like to comment both as a spectator that attended last weekend's Upper Mohaka Rodeo and as a long-term horse lover.
I know that many of the horses that end up with a career in the rodeo are horses that have been tried for riding and for some reason or another have failed to accept their riders. These horses are generally shot or killed for dog food.
A lucky few will end up in a rodeo where they only have to work a few days of the year entertaining and many soon learn the ropes.
They buck while being ridden and once riders have parted company with them the horses stop bucking and are led, happy, back to the yards.
Sunday's rodeo animals were definitely the winners.
From my observation very few were ridden for more than a few seconds.
No bull ride was scored, and it may have been a similar story for the bareback and saddle-bronc rides. The steers for the roping all wore padded hats, or crash helmets so they didn't get rope burn and there was no score here also.
The animals all looked well cared for and their lives would be secure for some time if they preformed well - not like the majority of cattle beasts and many horses in this country.Chrissy HansenHawke's BayPort view supportI would add just one point to Garth Eyles' thoughtful and perceptive letter (Hawke's Bay Today, January 23) pointing out the adverse consequences of selling Napier Port to private interests. All his arguments are also valid when considering our nation's assets as a whole.
What I would add is that last year Standard and Poor dropped New Zealand's credit rating, something which adversely affects all New Zealanders. One of the main reasons they gave was the excessive amount of money leaving New Zealand in the form of profits or dividends for overseas owners and investors.
Inevitably the port, like all our other assets, if sold will fall into overseas hands and the outflow of money will increase. A further credit rating downgrade could well follow.
Moreover, as Garth pointed out, at present the returns from the Port remain with the community but once it is sold we will not see them.
How, then, can anyone justify the privatisation of the port, or any of our country's vital, and profitable, infrastructure? Paul CanhamGreenmeadowsSale opposedI agree with Garth Eyles. Let's have a discussion regarding the possible sale of our port. Surely the Hawke's Bay Regional Council is obliged, if not legally bound, to consult the community and not to act in a high-handed and non-democratic way.
Our port should not be sold and listed on the sharemarket.
What trust can we have in sharemarkets and high-flying financiers?
The regional council "owns" the port on behalf of the communities within its boundaries, but that "ownership" carries with it responsibility and accountability to the community.
Isabel Morgan, Napier
