RFC off field success

[Thursfieldness]

With all the negative (largely justified) comments on this board in recent times , I thought it appropriate to congratulate the Richmond Football Club on its off field turn around.

Richmond with the exception of the Kangaroos spends less on its football department than any other AFL club. While low football department spending is characteristic of 9 of the 10 victorian football clubs, it is our club which spends the least.

However these low levels of spending are necessary in order for the club to turn a profit, something crucial to its long term survival. Richmond are not only rebuilding on field but also of it and i'm sure on field success will not be far behind the off field. Simply, the club has done a fantastic job in developing a disheveled mess into an organisation able to turn a profit.

I believe that the right infrastructures and people are now in place (possibly with the exception of Miller) to see on field results. This will hopefully culminate in Richmond again being a club feared especially by the cretinous interstate - or as i like to call them - 'handout clubs'. Australia will soon again hear the roar of (the AFL's most passionate supporters) the tiger army in September.

This may be a rather positive spin on an occurance which isn't always translated into on field success but an occurance worth applauding none the less. What are other people's thoughts?

 

[tigerT]

I applaud the streamlining theyve done to cut the losses and help us turn a profit, but now the important question is, what are we doing to increase income in order to increase our spending on the fundamentals like the football department - coaching,recruiting,player development etc.

Are we bringing in more corporate support? If not why not? We keep hearing that the richmond brand is well known but for as long as i can remember we have always been bottom 2 or 3 with regards to income from the corporate sector. We need a lot more income. Go to the AFL and get the handouts. Its a disgrace that clubs like the doggies, Melbourne, Stkilda in the past, Carlton all get handouts and all spend more than us in key areas like recruiting and coaching. Absolute disgrace its allowed to happen.

 

[Thursfieldness]

True the test will be in the years to come in terms of how Richmond are able to build toward being competetive off field and at least being able to use 100% of the salary cap.

However to be honest, I don't have a problem with Victorian or indeed any clubs receiving handouts if they need it. My beef is with Sydney and Brisbane in particular recieving money to 'promote the game' or keep 'home grown' players.

 

[jezza]

I would suggest that income has increased significantly in the last couple of years based on more and better sponsors, higher memberships and better stadium deals. Along with the reduced spending, we have made very positive steps. But what must be realised is that we were starting from a very poor position and it will take a long time to be in a position to even match half of what the bigger clubs can spend.

 

[Supertiger]

RFC has a decent business foundation with some decent off field business assets like the Royal Oak in Richmond and the Wantirna Club but it needs to do more in gaming. Id like to see the club establish another gaming venue around the SE suburbs around the Glen Waverley/Mt Waverley/burwood/Ashburton/Ashwood area.

 

[Goldust]

True the test will be in the years to come in terms of how Richmond are able to build toward being competetive off field and at least being able to use 100% of the salary cap.

However to be honest, I don't have a problem with Victorian or indeed any clubs receiving handouts if they need it. My beef is with Sydney and Brisbane in particular recieving money to 'promote the game' or keep 'home grown' players.

Are you the same dude who won the $1000 in the Herald Sun Super Coach comp this week? If so, job well done buddy!!!

 

[Wally07]

Sorry but I cannot see us making a solid profit due to a lack of spending on our football department and finishing bottom as a positive. I see it as a huge negative.

We continually complain about the quality of the players on our list but is it the fact the we are giving them poor facilities with a lack of specialised coaching that is the problem. You look at the physical size of players at the rich clubs players and they are generally significantly stonger than the poor clubs. They are also performing much better.

Time to invest in recruiting and our players or there won't be much profit in future due to lack of membership and other revenue.

 

[soupofficial]

it's fine that you're not spending much on your football department in order to turn a profit, but the matter of 'return on investment' becomes even more important. in order to be competitive, richmond is going to have to do more with each dollar than the other clubs, and the future will tell whether this is what has happened.

all clubs in the AFL exist to win premierships, hopefully this is achievable on a modest budget.

 

[CoggaRules]

Sorry but I cannot see us making a solid profit due to a lack of spending on our football department and finishing bottom as a positive. I see it as a huge negative.

We continually complain about the quality of the players on our list but is it the fact the we are giving them poor facilities with a lack of specialised coaching that is the problem. You look at the physical size of players at the rich clubs players and they are generally significantly stonger than the poor clubs. They are also performing much better.

Time to invest in recruiting and our players or there won't be much profit in future due to lack of membership and other revenue.

spot on. Its all ok to be declaring a profit, but when you are doing that because you are paying pittance to recruiters, you tend to rely on finishing last so blind freddy can be the recruiter.
Aint that right GM? And the damning thing is that the form guide suggests that in your tenure, as the tiger recruiting guru, you have failed dismally, when it comes to anything outside, number 1 pick, or seducing a Brownie with who the coach is and how big the cheque is.
Why doesnt someone come up with the stats on who the guru GM has found at pick 20 and above for us, since he has been here? JS is my tip.
That is why we are wallowing in the mire.
Get Kevin Morris back or someone that has the score on the board,so we can at least see some kind of thought process, instaed of having a dude that reacts to the coat pullers, telling him, psst, you gotta see this kid, he is a gun.
BTW GM, Spud gets all the "credit" for the super deluxe **** ups that ended with us being stuck with a truck load of duds, but you know what? What input did you have, is the question that goes begging. Surely you were consulting him at the time? Did you not have any say whatsoever? Me dont think so.
I dont lose sight on one fact, you have been in the seat for how long now? 10 years of long service leave is about to tick over dude and we are still where we were when you entered the joint. Allbeit, as you always suggest when asked why the team is so shit, "well the supporters have to understand, the club has turened it around off the field" and that is the most improtant thing". Yeah it is, but the improtant question that you didnt asnwer is the one that suggests that you have NFI dude.
Why the **** dont the Kangas have to spray the same excuse? I mean if ever there was a team that was constantly up against it with finances its them, no supporter base etc. but they produce competitve units on the field.

 

[Thursfieldness]

Are you the same dude who won the $1000 in the Herald Sun Super Coach comp this week? If so, job well done buddy!!!

One and the same, i'm pumped.

While i'm here I might as well thank J. Bowden for his continually awesome performance in my dreamteams and supercoach teams since 1998.

 

[jezza]

spot on. Its all ok to be declaring a profit, but when you are doing that because you are paying pittance to recruiters, you tend to rely on finishing last so blind freddy can be the recruiter.
Aint that right GM? And the damning thing is that the form guide suggests that in your tenure, as the tiger recruiting guru, you have failed dismally, when it comes to anything outside, number 1 pick, or seducing a Brownie with who the coach is and how big the cheque is.
Why doesnt someone come up with the stats on who the guru GM has found at pick 20 and above for us, since he has been here? JS is my tip.
That is why we are wallowing in the mire.
Get Kevin Morris back or someone that has the score on the board,so we can at least see some kind of thought process, instaed of having a dude that reacts to the coat pullers, telling him, psst, you gotta see this kid, he is a gun.
BTW GM, Spud gets all the "credit" for the super deluxe **** ups that ended with us being stuck with a truck load of duds, but you know what? What input did you have, is the question that goes begging. Surely you were consulting him at the time? Did you not have any say whatsoever? Me dont think so.
I dont lose sight on one fact, you have been in the seat for how long now? 10 years of long service leave is about to tick over dude and we are still where we were when you entered the joint. Allbeit, as you always suggest when asked why the team is so shit, "well the supporters have to understand, the club has turened it around off the field" and that is the most improtant thing". Yeah it is, but the improtant question that you didnt asnwer is the one that suggests that you have NFI dude.
Why the **** dont the Kangas have to spray the same excuse? I mean if ever there was a team that was constantly up against it with finances its them, no supporter base etc. but they produce competitve units on the field.

The club has already said they are committing more to recruiting this year.

The money to boost recruiting is coming from somewhere, we are in effect robbing the provebial Peter to pay Paul. More money in recruiting means less in coaches or less in player payments, or less in debt repayments. We can not print money, it has to come from somewhere else, and whereever else it comes from, that area suffers as a result.

 

[Thursfieldness]

I'm not saying on field success doesn't matter but bagging the club continuously is not going to achieve anything, something positive may as well be said.

The fact the club has a bs on field culture is a seperate issue. My point is the club decided to fix its off field problems first which it has to some degree acheived, something which should be applauded.

25 years of rubbish are not going to be turned around in a hurry, it will take time. Whether Wallace and co will achieve 'long term success' is irrelevant to my point, at least there is a plan in place and everyone is heading in the same direction. This is a great leap forward from any recently previous administrations.

 

[Wally07]

BTW GM, Spud gets all the "credit" for the super deluxe **** ups that ended with us being stuck with a truck load of duds, but you know what? What input did you have, is the question that goes begging.

I think we can assume that Miller had a huge amount of influence over those decisions. Frawley has been a scapegoat on recruiting, couldn't coach but.

 

[SolidTiger]

RFC has a decent business foundation with some decent off field business assets like the Royal Oak in Richmond and the Wantirna Club but it needs to do more in gaming. Id like to see the club establish another gaming venue around the SE suburbs around the Glen Waverley/Mt Waverley/burwood/Ashburton/Ashwood area.

I agree in general. What I'd like to see is for a good portion of the profits invested in areas that will generate more income for the club. If we over spend the money in the football department again we may improve on the field but start making losses off the field. I think once we have a solid base for generating income, then we can go all out in putting money in the football department.

I am not saying to put all the profits into investments, but to strike the right balance between the football department and the investments. It would be very hard for the club to win premierships at all if it folds as a result of being too heavily in dept.

 

[PLSC]

yay!

off field success!

more money for miller and wallace!

yippee!

**** off!

 

[tigerdan]

Did they just renegotiate Miller and Wallace's contracts? No?

 

[CoggaRules]

I'm not saying on field success doesn't matter but bagging the club continuously is not going to achieve anything, something positive may as well be said.

The fact the club has a bs on field culture is a seperate issue. My point is the club decided to fix its off field problems first which it has to some degree acheived, something which should be applauded.

25 years of rubbish are not going to be turned around in a hurry, it will take time. Whether Wallace and co will achieve 'long term success' is irrelevant to my point, at least there is a plan in place and everyone is heading in the same direction. This is a great leap forward from any recently previous administrations.

this is exhibit A of towing the party line. The same old line is trundled out, in an effort to camouflage the rubbish that is being dished up now.
Lets just say that when it comes to the tigers its always, it will take time, but somehow when it comes to teams like the dawks, it didnt. Now why do you suppose thats the case? Forget about the shitty finances excuse, young draftees dont cost. Footy dept heads etc do.

 

[gaelictiogar]

A solid base is crucial but onfield success is essential if we are to attract corporate support and the money that comes with that.

Corporates will steer clear of spoon material and constant failure. They can't afford to be associated with it. However they would love to associate with a successful Richmond which if it was successful would be attracting 50,000 attendances on average and getting the buzz and hype that goes with that. The Richmond brand is strong. With the arguable exception of the pies - who are going to smash attendance records this year - our brand is as strong as any in the league but we NEED success.

 

[jezza]

yay!

off field success!

more money for miller and wallace!

yippee!

**** off!

I guess we should just lose money then....

 

[Thursfieldness]

As gaelictiogar points out a solid financial base is needed to see sustained on field success. Once this is in place the 'bottoming out' process becomes shorter think Essendon, Collingwood, Hawthorn and esp. West Coast who have all rebuilt to a competetive team much quicker than expected. This is the source of the current problems, our lack of competetiveness every week.

Richmond were the highest averaging friday night football audience in 2006 and as soon as we can be competetive again many of these lounge room supporters will be back at the games. There is no simple answer but the association between off field and on field performance is while not perfect very strong.

Those supporters of the Terry 'Wallet' theory can take their 'support' elsewhere.