Caro thinks Terry is safe

[Little Jackie]

I believe that Caro's statement is probably true, but still, a very brave assumption to make, even though she uses the word "thinks" which gives her an out.

Here are the facts (as i see them, others may have more data)

1. Richmond created a reputation in the past of burning its coaches.
2. Richmond has lost the opportunity in the past to hire the particular coaches that it desired because of the reputation it created in point 1.
3. The club recognizing the reputation it itself had created and the negative impact that it was creating on the club through the eyes of the administrative world, decided on a course of action that would revert and cause to change the public and administrative reputation of how it handles its coaches.
4. The decision was made to honor the contracts that the club entered into with its coaches.
5. The richmond football club stuck to its guns in the implementation of this new policy, witness Danny Frawley and by actually doing so did in fact gain some renewed credibility both publically and administratively.
6. The world of football administration (AFL, club level) in most cases will have a different reality on a scene than what its supporters (the mob) will have.
7. As much as supporters probably hate to admit it "the mob" is generally 90% wrong in most cases.


Taking into consideration the above points it's fair to say that, on the balance of all probability Wallace's position is safe for the duration of his contract. However, I might add that there is a point where following along a certain line of think can become more destructive than constructive. There is a time and a place for pretty much all types of decisions one can't blind themselves to ALL probable options because of the percieved and real mistakes of the past.

Richmond's position in respect to its contractural arrangements is admirable but it must realise it is a two way street and that the other side of the contract has a responsibility too.

Dont chain yourself into a line of think that you can't escape from.

Totally agree.
Although I have doubts whether we should of gone with Frawley as long as we did.
Saying all that, reckon if Wallet has a bad start, he is gone.
Its is a two way street as you say
The club cannot afford too ruin its "'branding"' much more.
All ready lost most friday night games and prime viewing etc etc

[torch]

terry will still be here in 2009

[Darth Tiger]

u can talk about rebuilding all you like, the fact remains he has changed nothing since he arrived.
if he was after youth, what the hell are these old duds like tivers still on the list and why did he pick up jordy and not a 18 year old. i hate repeating the same old lines but when the spin doctor is concerned, what choice do i have.
Miller and wallace have brough this club to its worst position on the field since the 80's, thats a fact

This post has got more holes in it than flywire.

I wont even bother to start an discussion with you Elton's brother because it is just so far from fact it is fanciful.

[mightytiges]

I believe that Caro's statement is probably true, but still, a very brave assumption to make, even though she uses the word "thinks" which gives her an out.

Here are the facts (as i see them, others may have more data)

1. Richmond created a reputation in the past of burning its coaches.
2. Richmond has lost the opportunity in the past to hire the particular coaches that it desired because of the reputation it created in point 1.
3. The club recognizing the reputation it itself had created and the negative impact that it was creating on the club through the eyes of the administrative world, decided on a course of action that would revert and cause to change the public and administrative reputation of how it handles its coaches.
4. The decision was made to honor the contracts that the club entered into with its coaches.
5. The richmond football club stuck to its guns in the implementation of this new policy, witness Danny Frawley and by actually doing so did in fact gain some renewed credibility both publically and administratively.
6. The world of football administration (AFL, club level) in most cases will have a different reality on a scene than what its supporters (the mob) will have.
7. As much as supporters probably hate to admit it "the mob" is generally 90% wrong in most cases.


Taking into consideration the above points it's fair to say that, on the balance of all probability Wallace's position is safe for the duration of his contract. However, I might add that there is a point where following along a certain line of think can become more destructive than constructive. There is a time and a place for pretty much all types of decisions one can't blind themselves to ALL probable options because of the percieved and real mistakes of the past.

Richmond's position in respect to its contractural arrangements is admirable but it must realise it is a two way street and that the other side of the contract has a responsibility too.

Dont chain yourself into a line of think that you can't escape from.

Good post RR.

At the end 1999 only Spud and Tony Elshaug were left to choose from because we had cut so many coaches. Sheedy (ex-Tiger), Malthouse (ex-Tiger), Mark Thompson and a host of others wouldn't have a bar of us.

Save to say now if Plough sees out his contract that just 2 coaches in 10 years would signify a club that now backs its coach, eliminating the old sacking coaches stigma. One thing Miller is definitely right about is stability is a crucial component to become successful. We would also now argue that with the upcoming redevelopment of Punt Rd and Craigieburn training complex (both to be completed by 2009), plus boosting recruiting and development resources over the past year,  plus a young list to work with, we would be an attractive proposition to any aspiring AFL coach.

In reality there's only 18 months left on Plough's contract as it ends Sept 2009. Perhaps midway through next year if progress has stalled then the club and Wallace may decide to mutually part company at the end of 2009 but until then I think Caro is right.

[Little Jackie]

we will wait and see,

[Fishfinger]

Elton's older brother, Darth. 

[Mr Magic]

He'll only be safe if we get out of the bottom four.

[Rodgerramjet]

Richmond will give hime every opportunity to prove himself " his assumptions"

Failing a catastrophic 2008 he should on what we have seen go the distance. But who really knows on what management will really do.

[Tiger Spirit]

Taking into consideration the above points it's fair to say that, on the balance of all probability Wallace's position is safe for the duration of his contract. However, I might add that there is a point where following along a certain line of think can become more destructive than constructive. There is a time and a place for pretty much all types of decisions one can't blind themselves to ALL probable options because of the percieved and real mistakes of the past.

Richmond's position in respect to its contractural arrangements is admirable but it must realise it is a two way street and that the other side of the contract has a responsibility too.

Dont chain yourself into a line of think that you can't escape from.

Agree with all of that Rodger.

If RFC is still living under that threat, after all this time, then they’re naïve, and have progressed nowhere.

The circumstances that prevailed in the past don’t have to haunt us for ever and a day, because, hopefully, things progress over time.

The reason coach sacking didn’t work in the past was because those running things didn’t understand the harm they were doing to the club by making one person responsible for all its problems.

There was no science to it; it was just an easy way to release the pressure from the outside.

So, as long as each individual is now accountable for their role, and not just the coach, then it shouldn’t be the issue it once was.  And if it was, then this club has learned absolutely nothing.

What will determine whether a prospective coach would take on RFC, in the future, would have little to do with past history.

For whatever reason, the trend now seems to be towards ‘rookie’ coaches, rather than recycling coaches that have already coached at AFL level.  The major reason for that is perhaps because ‘old’ thinking doesn’t cut it in today’s footy.

Clubs now have so many assistants and resources in the background, that we wouldn’t even know about, which doesn’t matter, but the main reason a prospective coach will now select one club over another perhaps has more to do with the resources he will have available to him, if he is to coach a particular club.

Without those resources, and the ability to embrace today’s techniques, most coaches wouldn’t survive, regardless of any past record; e.g. Denis Pagan.

[mightytiges]

For whatever reason, the trend now seems to be towards ‘rookie’ coaches, rather than recycling coaches that have already coached at AFL level.  The major reason for that is perhaps because ‘old’ thinking doesn’t cut it in today’s footy.

There's also hardly any recycled coaches left to choose from. Most are considered damaged goods from their previous coaching stints so clubs don't go near them. Look at Grant Thomas. Will he get another gig despite not being able to get the talented St Kilda list he had at his disposal to a GF.

[Tigermonk]

For whatever reason, the trend now seems to be towards ‘rookie’ coaches, rather than recycling coaches that have already coached at AFL level.  The major reason for that is perhaps because ‘old’ thinking doesn’t cut it in today’s footy.

There's also hardly any recycled coaches left to choose from. Most are considered damaged goods from their previous coaching stints so clubs don't go near them. Look at Grant Thomas. Will he get another gig despite not being able to get the talented St Kilda list he had at his disposal to a GF.

St-Kilda were struggling with injuries to key players MT when Grant Thomas was coaching in his last few years thats why they struggled badly but always seemed to thump us
anyway regardless af the injuries its in the past that now but l want to get your opinion here

1. Do you think Grant Thomas can coach
2.if Terry Wallace was to walk away or whatever would you have Grant Thomas coach the Tigers & the reason if yes or no
3. Do you think Thomas could make them play for him seeing he gets close to his players

l'm not saying l want Wallace out & Thomas in l just like to see what some think
 

[Francois Jackson]

i really dont think the players play for wallace. we need someone tough like a mckenna. someone from that malthouse, worsfold mentality

[Smokey]

1. Do you think Grant Thomas can coach
2.if Terry Wallace was to walk away or whatever would you have Grant Thomas coach the Tigers & the reason if yes or no
3. Do you think Thomas could make them play for him seeing he gets close to his players

1.  No.  He can motivate but he can't coach.
2.  No.  See above.  May as well get Northey back if we want a motivator that can't coach.
3.  Yes.  But no more than I believe Wallace has now.  In all the cheers and tears that our last 3 seasons under him has produced I have not seen or heard any evidence or rumours from the players of anything but 100% behind him and his staff.  In fact, during our darkest hours last season there was not one peep of discontent or lack of trust, rather the contrary, and that's one of the main reasons I believe this current football department and playing list will improve rapidly and become successful in the next few years.

[Francois Jackson]

I agree with u that there is no discontent within the group but i believe they are not playing to instruction and this is wallace's fault. either he is not hard enough or something is wrong.
Surely wallace is not thats stupid to encourage this chipping around crap week in week out.
if i dont see this type of play within the first 3 rounds then maybe, just maybe i might be a little swayed to believe this group might win a few games this year.

[mightytiges]

1. Do you think Grant Thomas can coach

I saw him more as a manager than a coach. Thomas' H/A record was good once the Saints got going but 2 wins from 6 finals and no GFs is a poor return. Ironically similar to Plough's record at the Dogs. I always thought his Saints were front runners who beat up the poor sides like us but were exposed under finals pressure when they were made accountable by the top sides and had to run hard both ways. Thomas' moves in that PF against the Swans were woeful which IMO showed him up short as a coach. I also think he topped up once the Saints got off the bottom which meant after 2004 their list didn't improve while other clubs did.

2.if Terry Wallace was to walk away or whatever would you have Grant Thomas coach the Tigers & the reason if yes or no

Nup for the reasons above.

3. Do you think Thomas could make them play for him seeing he gets close to his players

Well Wallace got Thomas down to Punt Rd last year to tell some home truths.

To be honest there may be an initial boost in the first year but that would be so for any new coach. There's been a common trend at Richmond of a new coach coming in and achieving significant improvement in his first year before the side falls away again in subsequent seasons and then another new coach brought in and the same thing is repeated while the players escape their responsibility for poor performances. We are poor because our senior players aren't up to it and need to be replaced by a new core group. That core group is still too young no matter who the coach is. Thomas' first couple of years were crap too winning just 4-5 games.