You're missing the point. It's very likely Arthur has done as much as any coach could have done given our resources relative to the bigger clubs. We need a fair bit of luck in consecutive weeks come finals time, and we have so far not had that luck. We might get luckier this year or next or after that under a new coach. But it won't be the coach that changed our fortunes, it will be fortune itself. It's also possible that we will gain some recruitment/retention advantages (e.g. TPAs and wealthy benefactors who can provide investment opportunities to players and jobs to their family members) in the short term that will reduce our reliance on luck in any given game. I really think coaching is the least of our problems. We are not a bad team, in fact we are quite good, but better coaching won't make us elite on the field. That is the role of everyone at the club who has a hand in recruitment and retention of playing staff. The coach is only a very small part of that. I think whatever would be spent on a better coach than Arthur might actually be better spent on poaching some recruitment/retention staff, although without the fat cheque book of other clubs the best staff are unlikely to want to come here.Well it isn't like we haven't given him a fair chance. 9yrs is a good run.