View Full Version : A Five year deal for the Next Coach.
A five year deal should be sighned by the new coach. Not a two or three year deal a five Year Deal.
Give the place another period of coaching stabilty. It didn't work this time but we must get the respect back from the football community whenit comes to sacking coaches. We're on the way so why not offer a five3 year deal. ( obviously with Hidden cluase in it, which forces the coach to sack himself if he can't perform)
Depends on who the coach is. If he's a proven coach, why not. But any newby should only be given 3 years IMHO.
1980GFVideo
28 Jun 2004, 10:55
Sheedy cant even get a three year deal without using us which shows how crazy it is to offer something like that.
Originally posted by 1980GFVideo
Sheedy cant even get a three year deal without using us which shows how crazy it is to offer something like that.
Frawley has had Five years. It has Taken us that long to work out he is not the answer. So why would it be any different for a new coach.
Five years allows the coach to make desicions for the future. Geelong is making huge steps from this approach, and I think there wouldn't be one richmond supporter that wouldn't support a youth policy ( again ).
What Happen with frawley was he had success early. Which made him think that we only need to top up our list and things would happen.
Originally posted by froars
Depends on who the coach is. If he's a proven coach, why not. But any newby should only be given 3 years IMHO.
Unproven Coach will need more time than a Proven Coach. This will probably lean the Board towards an experienced Coach unfortunately.
I would Say to Harvey, here is a five year dea,l the list is yours to do as you please, but we want to build from the floor up. No quick fixes, we want to set a foundation for the future by drafting as many high order draft picks as we can.
I've waited this long, another five years of watching a young side get better and better would be a pleasure.
No more Hudsons, Houlihans, Flemmings, Marsh's, GFletchers, Nichols, or szillers please just Kids.
1980GFVideo
28 Jun 2004, 11:55
Originally posted by nut
Frawley has had Five years.
Alot of the disenchantment with Frawley started well before this year.
Its not even five years and we are stuck without a decent coach until next year.
If you want to see youth built up, give the coach two or three years and let the coach show the board that what he is doing along the way and what progress he has made.
Costa understands the plan that Thompson has at Geelong and therefore was happy to renew his contract given Thompson could illustrate where he had gotten to with the side after that period of time.
Too p**s'd of with the last five years to want to see that type of committment to a new coach.
There is now way known I would touch an unproven coach with a 5 year contract. Indeed, given the current climate, I would MAYBE only offer it to Wallace if it was the clincher that got his signature.
The risks are far, far too high in the event things go pear shaped.
I guess a possibility exists to mitigate this risk, but it would require some pretty iron-clad termination caps on the contract.
nineteen eighty
28 Jun 2004, 14:45
Newbie = 2 year contract
Experienced = 3 years
Extensions can be thrown in as options but we certainly don't want to be committing ourselves for too long a period. I for sure don't want a 5 year period of stability if we go through the Frawley saga again. There are too many unknowns to commit for longer than a 2 - 3 year period (for both players and coaches).
Give Mick Malthouse a 10 year contract and a big broom to use in the first 2.
nineteen eighty
28 Jun 2004, 15:19
Originally posted by 1980
Give Mick Malthouse a 10 year contract and a big broom to use in the first 2.
I'd also give him a big bat. Start swinging Micky....
GhostofJimJess
28 Jun 2004, 15:35
Originally posted by nineteen eighty
Newbie = 2 year contract
Experienced = 3 years
About right, I think.
I reckon any coach worth his salt wouldn't touch a club that is prepared to offer a five year contract to new blood.
2 years - O'Donnell, G. Lyon type
3 years - Wallace, Eade type
4 years - Matthews, Sheedy, Pagan, Malthouse type
Captain Blood
28 Jun 2004, 16:16
Originally posted by nineteen eighty
Newbie = 2 year contract
Experienced = 3 years
can't afford to waste more time on a newbie - we have to have an experienced coach
I was discussing with a Geelong supporter today what Gary Ayres would be like as a coach, and he mentioned that he's a good man for getting discipline into a playing list, but not a premiership coach. So maybe we should get Ayres in to belt the boys into shape for two years and then go after Matthews or Malthouse or Pagan when their current contracts expire.
Rodgerramjet
28 Jun 2004, 18:12
Originally posted by GhostofJimJess
About right, I think.
I reckon any coach worth his salt wouldn't touch a club that is prepared to offer a five year contract to new blood.
2 years - O'Donnell, G. Lyon type
3 years - Wallace, Eade type
4 years - Matthews, Sheedy, Pagan, Malthouse type
Id run with this for sure, however if sheedy wanted 5 Id give it to him.
nineteen eighty
29 Jun 2004, 15:03
Originally posted by Mog
I was discussing with a Geelong supporter today what Gary Ayres would be like as a coach, and he mentioned that he's a good man for getting discipline into a playing list, but not a premiership coach. So maybe we should get Ayres in to belt the boys into shape for two years and then go after Matthews or Malthouse or Pagan when their current contracts expire.
That's not a bad call. Hadn't thought of it that way but interesting. Ayres would be good for belting them into shape. Still prefer Wallace as my number 1 pick with either Eade or Ayres as a fallback. I don't want the club to go down the untried path. And if Harvey ends up as coach I'll run the boundary of the 'G' naked first game in 2005 protesting the appointment.
Tigerbob
29 Jun 2004, 18:47
Im going a different way.
I do like Wallace but he is not going to come to us if we are rebuilding, no way, he'll just go to Adelaide and coach over there.
We need to rebuild, its as simple as that. No more quick, superquick, half quick fixes, NO!!
I want to rebuild the list from scratch.
To do that I suggest we actually interview 10-12 guys that will be willing to develop and nurture rather than wanting to recruit middle aged players.
I would think, Garry O'Donnell(Brisbane), Mark Harvey(Essendon), Peter Jonhas(Sydney), Kevin Morris (Essendon) would be my ideals, with Garry O'Donnell my prefered choice.
To me he has the respect of the players, Is a very intelligent man, Good personality, Learned his craft under Leigh Matthews and 3 Premierships (Could be four), and comes from a winning culture and master coach Kevin Sheedy. Talk about a CV. He also would know exactly what is expected in building a list that would eventually win a Premiership. You want experience?? 6 years as an assistant with 3 Premierships and a wooden spoon, The guy knows whats expected.
I repeat Wallace will not Coach us if we develop a list, he'll want a quick fix type situation and recruit players like Kingsley Hunter et all like he did at the Bulldogs.
Its time this club took a new direction.
Vote 1 Garry O'Donnell. :D
Originally posted by Tigerbob
...
I repeat Wallace will not Coach us if we develop a list, he'll want a quick fix type situation and recruit players like Kingsley Hunter et all like he did at the Bulldogs.
...
I am not prepared to underestimate the ego of someone who wants to coach AFL football!:eek:
I may suggest that doing for Richmond what Malthouse did for Collingwood would be a massive enticement for someone with the ego of Wallace.
Be a chance for him to be remembered as a supercoach and be mentioned in the same breath as Matthews, Barrassi, Kennedy and Hafey!
Won't get that by taking on Adelaide!
(BTW, Neil Craig actually knocked back an offer from West Coast a few years back! He must have had some pretty decent assurances in place if he was prepared to knock back a plum job like that!)
Originally posted by CJH
II may suggest that doing for Richmond what Malthouse did for Collingwood would be a massive enticement for someone with the ego of Wallace.
Malthouse is fine, but he needs someone like Eddie Maguire along side as president. Casey ain't no Eddie. As much as I dislike Eddie and all his works, he's been fantastic for Collingwood.
heartbroken
29 Jun 2004, 20:01
If you think that Wallace would be taking the easy option by going to Adelaide, think again. Being a 2 team town, he will be under extreme pressure over there. Also, he would have several players in addition to Carey and Smart retiring soon. eg Clarke and Hart.
I would have thought that it would all come down to pay and rebuilding strategies that each club had.
3 years.
Nothing else unless Matthews or Sheedy were available which they aren't.
Whoever you sign, give him a long-term contract. Give him the chance to rebuild your list. That's got to be your main priority. Give the guy a decent opportunity to sweep out the closet, rebuild for the future, and then see the results of his labour in a few years time.
At this stage the new coach would be expecting an option at the end of three years.Provided we are travelling nicely i see no problem with this.
As a club that has been bent over and rogered by a long list of caoches i think it best we commit to no more than 3 years and a handshake on a performance based extension option.
One day at a time sweet Jesus!
Bojangles17
29 Jun 2004, 21:24
Originally posted by nut
A five year deal should be sighned by the new coach. Not a two or three year deal a five Year Deal.
Give the place another period of coaching stabilty. It didn't work this time but we must get the respect back from the football community whenit comes to sacking coaches. We're on the way so why not offer a five3 year deal. ( obviously with Hidden cluase in it, which forces the coach to sack himself if he can't perform)
Unless it was a sheedy or Matthews it would be the stupidist thing possible highlighting a shortsighted view at producing stability
Truetiger
29 Jun 2004, 21:59
Eade this Eade that. 3 year deal for him I would not want him for 1 at my club. Richmond should look at Wallace for alot more reasons then stupid Eade.
Anything more than 3 years is lunacy, We held on to spud purely for stability for 5 years and everyone , i mean everyone new he had to go well before his tenure is up
Every situation should be judged on its merits , not because of the mistakes we have made in the past
Bojangles17
29 Jun 2004, 22:16
Originally posted by Truetiger
Eade this Eade that. 3 year deal for him I would not want him for 1 at my club. Richmond should look at Wallace for alot more reasons then stupid Eade.
My preference has wallace slightly ahead of Eade, although I find your assessment of Eade a little odd...its no accident when a coach lands a team in grand final and then 4 successive finals appearances to follow.....I wish spud was that stupid....
Please explain.....
For the record, I'm a Wallace man.
Tigerrific
29 Jun 2004, 22:34
Originally posted by oxx
For the record, I'm a Wallace man.
Me too, if we can't get him I'd like O'Donnell.