One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: 🏅Dooks on May 02, 2016, 07:06:11 PM
-
They must have all been in on it. Behind holes.
It's your fault as a supporter and you get what you deserve.
Richmond GM of Football Dan Richardson discusses the Tigers poor start to the season, and defends their overall strategy.
AUDIO: https://audioboom.com/boos/4507860-richmond-gm-of-football-dan-richardson-on-breakfast
----------------------------------------------------------
Tigers 'paying the price' for recruit strategy
AFL.com.au
May 2, 2016
RICHMOND is "paying the price" for attempting to fast-track its list rebuild under Damien Hardwick with mature-age recruits, football manager Dan Richardson says.
Richardson told SEN radio on Monday that when Hardwick took over as senior coach at the end of 2009 Richmond had decided it could not afford an eight-year rebuild.
Richardson said it had been "a terrific achievement" for Richmond to make the finals in Hardwick's four years at the helm, but acknowledged the Tigers' list management strategy had been a factor in the club's slow start to 2016.
"We couldn't take eight years to rebuild. We needed to become competitive a bit quicker than that. But at that time all the best talent basically for the next four to five years was going to be going north (to Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney)," Richardson said.
"We're seeing the likes of GWS reap the rewards of that now. Our strategy wasn't just to go to the draft like a lot of clubs did because we knew that would probably take six to eight years and we've seen that with the likes of Melbourne.
"We didn't think Richmond fans would accept an eight-year rebuild. We turned it around in four, which I think was a terrific achievement.
"We're paying a price in the sense that we knew that that mature-age talent would get us to a point but not take us to the next level, which was always going to be the hardest part.
"While it's been disappointing somewhat to not win a final, it's been a good achievement to play finals for three years in a row for the first time for 20 years for the club."
Richardson acknowledged everyone at Punt Road was frustrated by the club's 1-5 start to 2016, but he was confident that 2014 draftees Corey Ellis (pick No.12), Connor Menadue (pick No.33) and 2015 pick Daniel Rioli (No.15) would be "really good long-term players".
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-02/richmond-paying-the-price-for-recruiting-strategy-says-football-manager
-
https://media.giphy.com/media/rl0FOxdz7CcxO/giphy-facebook_s.jpg
-
Lke I said
-
Happy to take our future fund money off the back a deliberately shortened rebuild expected to fail, then blame the fans.
Frauds.
-
The truth hurts
-
Happy to take our future fund money off the back a deliberately shortened rebuild expected to fail, then blame the fans.
Frauds.
Never mind that its patently untrue to boot. Never at any stage in the last 35 years did a new regime have carte blanche and as much time as they needed to get things right as the current regime. Talk about rewriting history.
They all have to go.
-
Happy to take our future fund money off the back a deliberately shortened rebuild expected to fail, then blame the fans.
Frauds.
Did you ring SEN this morning? A caller was voicing this almost exactly word for word.
-
Happy to take our future fund money off the back a deliberately shortened rebuild expected to fail, then blame the fans.
Frauds.
Did you ring SEN this morning? A caller was voicing this almost exactly word for word.
Nah wasn't me
-
Happy to take our future fund money off the back a deliberately shortened rebuild expected to fail, then blame the fans.
Frauds.
Did you ring SEN this morning? A caller was voicing this almost exactly word for word.
It was me but I was impersonating Dooks
-
drichardson@richmondfc.com.au
bgale@richmondfc.com.au
tell them what you think
-
drichardson@richmondfc.com.au
bgale@richmondfc.com.au
tell them what you think
Why bother. They don't actually read those e-mail addresses
-
drichardson@richmondfc.com.au
bgale@richmondfc.com.au
tell them what you think
Better to tweet them.
-
+1
-
Just can't, part of the problem and the afknl milks it. GWS most hated side now, what a joke this "competition is!"
-
Just can't, part of the problem and the astuffnl milks it. GWS most hated side now, what a joke this "competition is!"
:clapping
-
Post club email address but do not post personal email address, if they are not in the public domain :banghead
Why? legal advice this evening "remove it, you're at risk again"
-
:lol
-
www.landers.com.au is in the public domain and that's where you will find the email address
Apology accepted legal team, now if you don't mind please post the email address again
:thumbsup
-
"We didn't think Richmond fans would accept an eight-year rebuild. We turned it around in four, which I think was a terrific achievement.
"We're paying a price in the sense that we knew that that mature-age talent would get us to a point but not take us to the next level, which was always going to be the hardest part.
"While it's been disappointing somewhat to not win a final, it's been a good achievement to play finals for three years in a row for the first time for 20 years for the club."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-02/richmond-paying-the-price-for-recruiting-strategy-says-football-manager
Perhaps, Dan Richardson should learn to not speak for Tiger supporters when he wasn't around back in 2010 to know what we said ::).
Fact is, at one of the fan forums back then that a few OERites attended, it was clearly stated to those officials present at the Club at the time, that we as members/supporters didn't care if it took longer to get things right, as long as it was finally done properly and there were no so-called "quick fixes".
-
a terrific achievement.
And yet 2nd last after seven years
Terrific
Just terrific.
-
www.landers.com.au is in the public domain and that's where you will find the email address
Apology accepted legal team, now if you don't mind please post the email address again
:thumbsup
Wont be posting the email address again as you've supplied the link to website (even that it's the wrong one) that's all that needed in this case
We just follow the advice of my legal eagle, they said it was a dumb move having it posted here, gave reasons, so it got removed.
-
Maybe we could have a legal thread where every now and then the legal advice person could be available to post a bit. A bit like RFC Offal use to do.
-
www.landers.com.au is in the public domain and that's where you will find the email address
Apology accepted legal team, now if you don't mind please post the email address again
:thumbsup
Wont be posting the email address again as you've supplied the link to website (even that it's the wrong one) that's all that needed in this case
We just follow the advice of my legal eagle, they said it was a dumb move having it posted here, gave reasons, so it got removed.
i dont suppose those reasons will be passed on, or will that in itself contravene something?
-
i dont suppose those reasons will be passed on, or will that in itself contravene something?
Seriously Penelope what's the point
Would just be ridiculed further with lots of these :lol
I get that people find the reasons we give "stupid", even ridiculous but unfortunately in the world in which we find ourselves people look for any excuse for legal action. That's just (dare I say it) a fact of like
And I've said this before we had a major issue a couple of years back (actually make that 2 major issues) and now if the advice we get is to remove then we remove
I would hope that people despite their angst would respect those decisions as they are only ever done in the best interest of this site
-
whats the point? openness and transparency.
most people prefer an explanation, even if they dont agree with it rather than a "because i said so"
-
whats the point? openness and transparency.
most people prefer an explanation, even if they dont agree with it rather than a "because i said so"
Fair enough. But when we are open and tranparent we cop abuse and ridicule. So i wonder why bother
But Ok when i get home tonight i will post a more thorough explanation, althou
Just cant do it at the moment
-
"We didn't think Richmond fans would accept an eight-year rebuild. We turned it around in four, which I think was a terrific achievement...."
Underlined area probably sums it up.
-
"We didn't think Richmond fans would accept an eight-year rebuild. We turned it around in four, which I think was a terrific achievement.
"We're paying a price in the sense that we knew that that mature-age talent would get us to a point but not take us to the next level, which was always going to be the hardest part.
"While it's been disappointing somewhat to not win a final, it's been a good achievement to play finals for three years in a row for the first time for 20 years for the club."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-02/richmond-paying-the-price-for-recruiting-strategy-says-football-manager
Perhaps, Dan Richardson should learn to not speak for Tiger supporters when he wasn't around back in 2010 to know what we said ::).
Fact is, at one of the fan forums back then that a few OERites attended, it was clearly stated to those officials present at the Club at the time, that we as members/supporters didn't care if it took longer to get things right, as long as it was finally done properly and there were no so-called "quick fixes".
Spot on. Dan Richardson was not present when the decisions were made in 2010 and therefore he is not in a position to comment on the intentions behind those decisions. The use of think suggests it is an assumption made by the club without having any evidentiary basis for making such an assumption. No where is it stated by him that the club had undertaken polling of its fans regarding this issue at the time.
-
lol, its not like he would have been sent out and told what to say
-
We get all those useless surveys to fill out....
Why didn't they bother sending one out asking g members what they wanted - a 4 year patch up or a proper 8 year build? :huh
-
"We didn't think Richmond fans would accept an eight-year rebuild. We turned it around in four, which I think was a terrific achievement...."
Underlined area probably sums it up.
Waited 10 years already ffs
-
whats the point? openness and transparency.
most people prefer an explanation, even if they dont agree with it rather than a "because i said so"
Ok here you go
Reason it was removed
Considering the word we live in, how litigious society has become. Based on cyber bullying laws (including threats, stalking & abuse) the site was at risk by being able to be linked back to how a person got the email address.
So however remotely or unlikely this site and including the original poster could be considered complicit or inciting any proven case of cyber abuse or bullying if emails sent were of that nature. Throw in the fact that the actual email address was not easily found. So I got removed
As I said yesterday people may not like it, may not agree with it, laugh it off, ridicule us and shake their collective heads and say what I've just highlighted is absolute crap but that was the advice received.
Again have said it before we as site owners have had to deal with a major legal issue in the past and based on that we will continue to remove anything that we are advised could put this site at risk
WP & Mr OE
-
Am I allowed to post 'I hate grigg' and 'Chaplin is a stuffin dud' or is that bullying too?
-
Am I allowed to post 'I hate grigg' and 'Chaplin is a stuffin dud' or is that bullying too?
Actually it is a good question, not in relation to what you say but some of the personal attacks on individuals (or those related to individuals) in the RFC. There have been instances of personal abuse and threats of physical violence on both players, officials and their relatives.
Now its obvious in most cases it is just people venting and letting off steam, but a question I have often asked is there a duty of care for this forum in this regard.
I think a legal thread with a voice given to a legal expert would be beneficial.
-
whats the point? openness and transparency.
most people prefer an explanation, even if they dont agree with it rather than a "because i said so"
Ok here you go
Reason it was removed
Considering the word we live in, how litigious society has become. Based on cyber bullying laws (including threats, stalking & abuse) the site was at risk by being able to be linked back to how a person got the email address.
So however remotely or unlikely this site and including the original poster could be considered complicit or inciting any proven case of cyber abuse or bullying if emails sent were of that nature. Throw in the fact that the actual email address was not easily found. So I got removed
As I said yesterday people may not like it, may not agree with it, laugh it off, ridicule us and shake their collective heads and say what I've just highlighted is absolute crap but that was the advice received.
Again have said it before we as site owners have had to deal with a major legal issue in the past and based on that we will continue to remove anything that we are advised could put this site at risk
WP & Mr OE
So I am correct in saying that essentially the advice is that if the site put up the email addresses of those in question and a poster on this site sent an email which offended against the Crimes Act 1958(eg stalking) then not only the poster but the operators of the site could face criminal charges on the basis that the site operators were acting in common with the poster or aiding abetting the poster commit a criminal offence.
-
Wont be posting the email address again as you've supplied the link to website (even that it's the wrong one) that's all that needed in this case
We just follow the advice of my legal eagle, they said it was a dumb move having it posted here, gave reasons, so it got removed.
Actually that was the correct site.
Also WP I have a question out of curiousity. Does your 'legal eagle' read/comment on this site (no need to tell us who if they do) or do you just take specific things to him to get his opinion?
-
Wont be posting the email address again as you've supplied the link to website (even that it's the wrong one) that's all that needed in this case
We just follow the advice of my legal eagle, they said it was a dumb move having it posted here, gave reasons, so it got removed.
Actually that was the correct site.
Also WP I have a question out of curiousity. Does your 'legal eagle' read/comment on this site (no need to tell us who if they do) or do you just take specific things to him to get his opinion?
Getting a bit 'twitchy' are you? ;)
-
So I am correct in saying that essentially the advice is that if the site put up the email addresses of those in question and a poster on this site sent an email which offended against the Crimes Act 1958(eg stalking) then not only the poster but the operators of the site could face criminal charges on the basis that the site operators were acting in common with the poster or aiding abetting the poster commit a criminal offence.
You sound like a lawyer ;D and you raise an interesting question. Do you have the answer?
I was talking more from the possibility of civil proceedings. Which we were facing a couple of years ago with stuff that had been posted on here a number of years prior to us being contacted. People scoff but it was a very serious situation and since then we take absolutely no chances.
Also WP I have a question out of curiousity. Does your 'legal eagle' read/comment on this site (no need to tell us who if they do) or do you just take specific things to him to get his opinion?
No they don't post here.
We have a very clear set of guidelines we've been given and we follow those. Anything outside of those guidelines that concerns us we get further advice.
-
So I am correct in saying that essentially the advice is that if the site put up the email addresses of those in question and a poster on this site sent an email which offended against the Crimes Act 1958(eg stalking) then not only the poster but the operators of the site could face criminal charges on the basis that the site operators were acting in common with the poster or aiding abetting the poster commit a criminal offence.
You sound like a lawyer ;D and you raise an interesting question. Do you have the answer?
I was talking more from the possibility of civil proceedings. Which we were facing a couple of years ago with stuff that had been posted on here a number of years prior to us being contacted. People scoff but it was a very serious situation and since then we take absolutely no chances.
Also WP I have a question out of curiousity. Does your 'legal eagle' read/comment on this site (no need to tell us who if they do) or do you just take specific things to him to get his opinion?
No they don't post here.
We have a very clear set of guidelines we've been given and we follow those. Anything outside of those guidelines that concerns us we get further advice.
Thank you for your post. I can understand the need to be cautious and the operators of the site should be congratulated on taking such an approach. It not only protects the operators of the site from civil action but also the possibility of any criminal charges. By not putting yourself in such a position it saves the operators of the site from accusations of behaviour which could well be classed as criminal behaviour.
-
"We didn't think Richmond fans would accept an eight-year rebuild. We turned it around in four, which I think was a terrific achievement...."
Underlined area probably sums it up.
Waited 10 years already ffs
Tick Tock Tick Tock
-
"We didn't think Richmond fans would accept an eight-year rebuild. We turned it around in four, which I think was a terrific achievement...."
Underlined area probably sums it up.
Waited 10 years already ffs
Tick Tock Tick Tock
Yep, of all the dumb crap peddled by the club this year - this one takes the biscuit
-
It would appear very hard for faceless keyboard posters to accept their share of blame for what has gone wrong
-
Richmond as average as the welsh national football team