One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on November 12, 2015, 09:37:48 PM
-
Richmond Tigers record $500,000 profit
Caroline Wilson
The Age
November 12, 2015 - 7:25PM
With Richmond yet to clarify its strategy regarding the coaching future of Damien Hardwick beyond 2016, the Tigers can at least plot for on-field success in the knowledge they remain among the most financially secure clubs in the AFL.
While the pain of its third straight elimination final defeat continues to haunt the Richmond psyche, the Brendon Gale-led administration will record its seventh straight profit to the tune of $500,000 for 2015. Having eliminated the last of its debt two years ago, the club now boasts significant cash reserves.
The board has not yet opened the debate on Hardwick's contract, although if the prevailing mood of stability across Punt Road is any indication the coach would seem likely to receive another contract extension in the first half of next year.
Hardwick has taken the Tigers to three successive finals and, although no one in a position of influence at the club saw the September capitulation to North Melbourne coming, the view remains that the coach has continued to improve.
It would take a serious setback for Richmond at this stage to turn to another untried coach with all the existing elder statesmen in contract beyond next year, with the exception of Paul Roos, who is expected to retire from senior coaching, and Alastair Clarkson, who has indicated he is ready to sign on again with the Hawks.
A top-four finish is the only ambition Gale has failed to achieve of his lofty hopes when he took on the job. On every other measure, bar the one that truly counts, Richmond are now a contender with more than 70,000 members and having in 2015 attracted the largest attendance figures in the competition.
Steadfastly refusing to discuss Hardwick's future beyond next season, Gale said the $500,000 profit – Richmond's 11th in succession – was a credit to the Tigers' board. "At the end of the day they're the people who should take the credit," he said.
While the profit was significantly down on 2014's $1.3 million, Gale said the Tigers had taken a deliberate view to invest more money into football with the club now ranked about eighth in the AFL in football spending, up from 10th the previous year. Richmond is now close to touching the soft spending cap imposed by the competition and will debate next year whether to exceed it beyond 2016.
Richmond has also paid $200,000 tax into the equalisation fund, a fund that Gale – along with most CEOs in the competition – agree demands reviewing. Geelong will lose some $500,000 in 2015 and yet have contributed $300,000 into the fund, which will net little more than $3 million to go towards the financially struggling clubs.
Beyond those two additional costs, Gale said of current club operations: "It's tough out there. We've had a strong result and a modest surplus but it's tough." Carlton's decision to withdraw from the gate-sharing agreement it held with the Tigers also hit Richmond's bottom line to the tune of at least an estimated $300,000.
Richmond, with a strong commercial fixture but a tough football campaign, will host the 2016 season-opener against the Blues in the only clash between the two traditional rivals next season.
The club's younger players were to start pre-season training on Friday with the intensive soul-searching that followed the North loss completed in the weeks that followed the game. Daniel Richardson and his team returned on Thursday from a three-day off-shore session devising draft strategies and Dustin Martin has returned early from his end-of-season trip with Dane Swan.
The only significant setback which followed the end of Richmond's campaign was the failure to secure Adam Treloar despite club bosses believing they had secured a trade agreement. But the Tigers no longer struggle to retain their good players and stood firm to retain its first round pick going into the national draft.
There remains only one elephant in the once murderous Richmond boardroom and that cannot be eliminated until next September.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/richmond-tigers-record-500000-profit-20151112-gkxopx.html
-
Until one sees the actual numbers hard to comment
But well done another profit :clapping
-
big deal
what are they doing with the money? Not spending on the footy department so i'm curious whose pockets are getting filled?
-
Dimma must be under the pump to win a final. Once you've got no comment then the knives are out. Pity to see him go in some ways, as least we made finals consistently under him. You never know we might win one this year. Will the bye in rnd 23 mean no one will rest players?
-
big deal
what are they doing with the money? Not spending on the footy department so i'm curious whose pockets are getting filled?
probably some shifty property developing wog
-
big deal
what are they doing with the money? Not spending on the footy department so i'm curious whose pockets are getting filled?
Did you read the article at all?
Says we've moved up the footy department spend list again from 10th to 8th
Also said we had to pay $200k in tax the AFL for the equalisation fund. You only pay that when your footy spend hits a certain level.
You are also aware that no one on the Board gets paid. Only employees get paid.
As I also posted until you see the actual numbers and how it's all made up it's hard to comment
So can I suggest instead of giving out whacks for the sake of it we wait to see the what makes up the numbers and then people can whack away to their hearts content
-
big deal
what are they doing with the money? Not spending on the footy department so i'm curious whose pockets are getting filled?
Did you read the article at all?
Says we've moved up the footy department spend list again from 10th to 8th
Also said we had to pay $200k in tax the AFL for the equalisation fund. You only pay that when your footy spend hits a certain level.
You are also aware that no one on the Board gets paid. Only employees get paid.
As I also posted until you see the actual numbers and how it's all made up it's hard to comment
So can I suggest instead of giving out whacks for the sake of it we wait to see the what makes up the numbers and then people can whack away to their hearts content
good call..
was bout to comment on the same..
-
big deal
what are they doing with the money? Not spending on the footy department so i'm curious whose pockets are getting filled?
Did you read the article at all?
Says we've moved up the footy department spend list again from 10th to 8th
Also said we had to pay $200k in tax the AFL for the equalisation fund. You only pay that when your footy spend hits a certain level.
You are also aware that no one on the Board gets paid. Only employees get paid.
As I also posted until you see the actual numbers and how it's all made up it's hard to comment
So can I suggest instead of giving out whacks for the sake of it we wait to see the what makes up the numbers and then people can whack away to their hearts content
Our board don't deserve to be paid, they are too intent on self preservation
-
big deal
what are they doing with the money? Not spending on the footy department so i'm curious whose pockets are getting filled?
Did you read the article at all?
Says we've moved up the footy department spend list again from 10th to 8th
Also said we had to pay $200k in tax the AFL for the equalisation fund. You only pay that when your footy spend hits a certain level.
You are also aware that no one on the Board gets paid. Only employees get paid.
As I also posted until you see the actual numbers and how it's all made up it's hard to comment
So can I suggest instead of giving out whacks for the sake of it we wait to see the what makes up the numbers and then people can whack away to their hearts content
lol now we are 8th. :dancing overpaying a bunch of duds is hardly good business WP.
I can make a good profit in my business next year but if i dont produce anything with it then its hardly worth even mentioning.
Benny is not on the board now is he. I would think they do get a lot of benefits with our money dont be fooled.
-
lmao
complain we are not spending enough on the football dept but when it is pointed out we have increased that spending, complain we are spending too much.
how good is that........ if you like to whinge like a spoiled princess, that is?
-
lol now we are 8th. :dancing overpaying a bunch of duds is hardly good business WP.
Seeing we were in the bottom four - 4 years ago it's a big climb
Benny is not on the board now is he. I would think they do get a lot of benefits with our money dont be fooled.
Actually the constitution change that got passed a few years that everyone said was a good thing because Benny said it was a good thing but now so many sook about means he sits on the board as Executive Director but his voting powers would be limited
As for the other Directors they do not get paid for being on the board. As for other perks - would say you want to believe it because it suits your argument. Know for a fact that all directors pay their own way when they travel to interstate games.
lmao
complain we are not spending enough on the football dept but when it is pointed out we have increased that spending, complain we are spending too much.
Yep certainly ironic
-
Six, I can slay the Jabberwocky.
big deal
what are they doing with the money? Not spending on the footy department so i'm curious whose pockets are getting filled?
amen
maybe we can buy neymar?
in a commie league where the governing body gives 1/2 millon fines for not tanking, covering up drug cheating, salary caps, drafts, equalization rubbish ...
does it matter?
-
Glad someone sees it for what it is Bents.
11 of the last 12 flags have been won by the team who spends the most according to Denham, but willy continues to get excited about 8th place
Bring on the Russomeister to sort this mess out :thumbsup
-
yep bring on the man who thinks hardwick is an excellent coach
a three year extension to his tenure will sort this mess out, no two ways about it.
waaay to gooo, maaaaaaaate.
-
11 of the last 12 flags have been won by the team who spends the most according to Denham, but willy continues to get excited about 8th place
Bring on the Russomeister to sort this mess out :thumbsup
The club with the biggest footy spend didn't play finals again in 2015. Actually said club capitulated in the 2nd half of the season (again) and they're about to give their Coach a contract extension. Yep Collingwood is a great example of the amount of spend equalling success. The bombers for memory are in the top 4 in spend and they've gone brilliant too these last fews years. Don't you think?
Nice twist of words yet again Angus. Nowhere did I say I was "excited" about being ranked 8th in footy deprt spend. All I said was there's been a massive improvement from where we were 4 years ago being in the bottom 3-4 to now.
As for Russo, you actually failed (more likely refused) to answer my question on the other thread about how you think he is (if elected) going to win us a flag and "sort this mess out" if he is just one person on board of nine?
-
11 of the last 12 flags have been won by the team who spends the most according to Denham, but willy continues to get excited about 8th place
Bring on the Russomeister to sort this mess out :thumbsup
The club with the biggest footy spend didn't play finals again in 2015. Actually said club capitulated in the 2nd half of the season (again) and they're about to give their Coach a contract extension. Yep Collingwood is a great example of the amount of spend equalling success. The bombers for memory are in the top 4 in spend and they've gone brilliant too these last fews years. Don't you think?
Nice twist of words yet again Angus. Nowhere did I say I was "excited" about being ranked 8th in footy deprt spend. All I said was there's been a massive improvement from where we were 4 years ago being in the bottom 3-4 to now.
As for Russo, you actually failed (more likely refused) to answer my question on the other thread about how you think he is (if elected) going to win us a flag and "sort this mess out" if he is just one person on board of nine?
but they also cut away the limbs of a flag winning side
and loaded up with high draft picks
and now have the core of a flag winning side, and the most kids in the league, many high picks, outside of the expansion sides
poor example imho
the eddie and bucks lovefest means no one is getting fired any time soon. they are doing whats best for the LONG term future. antithesis of the dimma-plodder-mates-shortterm-8th ambitions
-
Received a copy of the full financials today in my inbox
Will have. Decent read Ove the weekend if I have time
But during my stock standard quick browse of them I noted that since 2010 we've increased footy spend by $8 million dollars. would think that puts highlights where we have come from to where we are now
-
i look forward to reading your summary William to highlight where these funds actually go. Now regarding he footy spend im interested in 1 thing. Being first and holding up the cup.
History says in order to do this you need to spend the most on the actual footy department, which we have never done.
8th 4th 3rd last it matters very little. We have 70,000 members and have more bums on seats than any other club so where the stuff is this money going.
-
Received a copy of the full financials today in my inbox
Will have. Decent read Ove the weekend if I have time
But during my stock standard quick browse of them I noted that since 2010 we've increased footy spend by $8 million dollars. would think that puts highlights where we have come from to where we are now
Compare it to the top clubs Willy - especially those who have climbed the ladder in recent years
-
Received a copy of the full financials today in my inbox
Will have. Decent read Ove the weekend if I have time
But during my stock standard quick browse of them I noted that since 2010 we've increased footy spend by $8 million dllars. would think that puts highlights where we have come from to where we are now
o yeah
my seach engine reckons collingwood were spending 23 million on the football department 2-3 years ago :whistle
-
Received a copy of the full financials today in my inbox
Will have. Decent read Ove the weekend if I have time
But during my stock standard quick browse of them I noted that since 2010 we've increased footy spend by $8 million dllars. would think that puts highlights where we have come from to where we are now
o yeah
my seach engine reckons collingwood were spending 23 million on the football department 2-3 years ago :whistle
And where has that got them....
-
History says in order to do this you need to spend the most on the actual footy department.
stop making poo up.
8th 4th 3rd last it matters very little.
and this doesnt contradict your previous statement at all, does it?
-
History says in order to do this you need to spend the most on the actual footy department, which we have never done.
Sorry but that is incorrect and this "history" is distorted by the simple fact Hawthorn has won the last 3 flags and in the top 4 in spend.
Histroy and current data clearly show that 2 of the top four spenders have failed to play finals the last 2 season. With the biggest spender finishing 12 th this season. Put whatever spin you want on Collongwood but the fact is they despite spending the most have not played finals, they have gone backwards results wise
Outside of Hawthorn winning flags The Swans & Geelong are premiership winners and neither of them were in the top four of footy dept spend. So I would argue the amount you spend isn't the main contributor, the what and or the how your invest it is the key.
Look at the Bulldogs this year they'd be in the bottom 5 in spend but check out their results this year. their program appears to be good one, they look as if they are building towards something and they are not bigger spenders. So perhaps it's more about quality of the program rather than the quantity of dollars spent
-
yeah well i did say cats were not included and as for pies well they were first the year they won the flag. That's all that matters. Lets get to that stage and win a flag first aye. Perhaps the swans were the highest so perhaps i was wrong there, but Buldogs please, they wont win a flag lets be honest here. Not interested in finals appearances only flags.
WP let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe we can win a flag with the current people we have in place? I dont and i have been saying it for years we dont spend enough and the people we spend on are not really efficient at their job. How does williams that ex dees looking clown still have a job? Vickery's old man. Max Bailey 2 year wonder. Come on.
I would like for us to spend the most on talented staff not the rubbish we have at the moment. I will be content with second place if willy gets to look at the books. 8th place whilst higher than the year aint worth the paper it is written on and by 2020 we should be in the top quartet if we want a chance at winning a flag.
russo cant come on board quick enough IMO. :dancing :dancing
-
Received a copy of the full financials today in my inbox
Will have. Decent read Ove the weekend if I have time
But during my stock standard quick browse of them I noted that since 2010 we've increased footy spend by $8 million dllars. would think that puts highlights where we have come from to where we are now
o yeah
my seach engine reckons collingwood were spending 23 million on the football department 2-3 years ago :whistle
And where has that got them....
the other team spending at that mark was.... hawthorn
-
History says in order to do this you need to spend the most on the actual footy department, which we have never done.
Sorry but that is incorrect and this "history" is distorted by the simple fact Hawthorn has won the last 3 flags and in the top 4 in spend.
Histroy and current data clearly show that 2 of the top four spenders have failed to play finals the last 2 season. With the biggest spender finishing 12 th this season. Put whatever spin you want on Collongwood but the fact is they despite spending the most have not played finals, they have gone backwards results wise
Outside of Hawthorn winning flags The Swans & Geelong are premiership winners and neither of them were in the top four of footy dept spend. So I would argue the amount you spend isn't the main contributor, the what and or the how your invest it is the key.
Look at the Bulldogs this year they'd be in the bottom 5 in spend but check out their results this year. their program appears to be good one, they look as if they are building towards something and they are not bigger spenders. So perhaps it's more about quality of the program rather than the quantity of dollars spent
yeah na
collingwood were the first team to spend 20m+ , they won the flag, either coincidentally, as a result, or somewhere in between
hawthorn were the only team in recent history to spend around the same as collingwood, they won the flag several times over
So I would argue the amount you spend is a pretty bloody important contributor
-
Other Clubs' 2015 financials announced so far:
Hawthorn FC record a profit of $3.3m.
$2m benefactor donation (which is NOT part of the reported profit)
Reduced debt by $1.2m
Increased its football department spend by 2% in 2015.
$1.35m paid to equalisation fund.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-11-13/hawks-pocket-premier-profit
Melbourne FC to announce a profit of $500k.
$5m debt ($4.1m owed to AFL). AFL debt expected to be reduced to less than $3m by early next year.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/melbourne-demons-set-to-record-stronger-profit-this-year-20151111-gkwpke.html#ixzz3rGczu3A9
Carlton FC to announce a loss of $2m.
In danger of breaching a "debt ceiling" imposed by the AFL, which underwrites a maximum $5 million Westpac overdraft for every club in the competition. According to the most recent accounts, Carlton have overdrawn that facility.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/blues-in-the-red-carlton-to-post-2-million-loss-break-debt-ceiling-20151110-gkvb0a.html#ixzz3rNQxpKaD
-
russo cant come on board quick enough IMO. :dancing :dancing
I'll answer your other question later
But while we are asking question why don't you answer mine, you know the one I've asked 3 times and you ignored
Please tell me how Russo is going to win us flag?
Exactly what is he going?
He would be if elected 1 of 9 so tell me how on a democratic board that's votes on decisions so pleas etell me how is going to make all these sweeping changes you obviously believe he is going to achieve for you?
Serious explain how he is going to make this massive difference?
-
History says in order to do this you need to spend the most on the actual footy department, which we have never done.
Sorry but that is incorrect and this "history" is distorted by the simple fact Hawthorn has won the last 3 flags and in the top 4 in spend.
Histroy and current data clearly show that 2 of the top four spenders have failed to play finals the last 2 season. With the biggest spender finishing 12 th this season. Put whatever spin you want on Collongwood but the fact is they despite spending the most have not played finals, they have gone backwards results wise
Outside of Hawthorn winning flags The Swans & Geelong are premiership winners and neither of them were in the top four of footy dept spend. So I would argue the amount you spend isn't the main contributor, the what and or the how your invest it is the key.
Look at the Bulldogs this year they'd be in the bottom 5 in spend but check out their results this year. their program appears to be good one, they look as if they are building towards something and they are not bigger spenders. So perhaps it's more about quality of the program rather than the quantity of dollars spent
yeah na
collingwood were the first team to spend 20m+ , they won the flag, either coincidentally, as a result, or somewhere in between
hawthorn were the only team in recent history to spend around the same as collingwood, they won the flag several times over
So I would argue the amount you spend is a pretty bloody important contributor
I agree, it's very important
-
what sweeping changes is he going to make?..Has he outlined any of these?....not that I'm aware of.
Have had enough of people coming to the club making sweeping statements without offering the nuts of bolts of how these things will be achieved..In the words of Pauline hanson........please explain
-
Wogs love wogs.
It's as simple as that
-
russo cant come on board quick enough IMO. :dancing :dancing
I'll answer your other question later
But while we are asking question why don't you answer mine, you know the one I've asked 3 times and you ignored
Please tell me how Russo is going to win us flag?
Exactly what is he going?
He would be if elected 1 of 9 so tell me how on a democratic board that's votes on decisions so pleas etell me how is going to make all these sweeping changes you obviously believe he is going to achieve for you?
Serious explain how he is going to make this massive difference?
Easier to knock them down if you've built them up
-
Can't imagine how bad the :banghead :banghead was during the mid to late 00's.
People here have an incredible talent for turning positive news into negatives.
Happy with how the board are operating at the moment, bums are on seats, revenue up and spending increased but we don't seem to be getting ahead of ourselves.
Dimma rightly has to prove himself this year, but I'm tipping him to rise to the challenge! I think he's improved as a coach greatly. Just needs to figure out how to win a final.
-
Please tell me how Russo is going to win us flag?
Exactly what is he going?
He would be if elected 1 of 9 so tell me how on a democratic board that's votes on decisions so pleas etell me how is going to make all these sweeping changes you obviously believe he is going to achieve for you?
Serious explain how he is going to make this massive difference?
Russo, like any new board member would hopefully shake things up by asking a few questions.
Not about the senior coach which is the useless short cut of most critics but questions that have been raised here.
Has an objective evaluation been done on the assistant coaches - their methods, results and feedback?
Is the relationship between development and assistant coaches best practice?
Has an exit interview been done with Clarke and Bailey and what were their responses?
Are the results of the recruiting department, after ten years under Jackson, good enough in response to the Inside Football story mid-season?
Are the living arrangements of new recruits satisfactory given that Martin was boarded at the ex-presidents and numerous new boys were placed with other players or even people outside the club like Rioli?
Just a few of these topics - and there are lots more - may prompt solutions to what appear from the outside to be failures of process.
-
Please tell me how Russo is going to win us flag?
Exactly what is he going?
He would be if elected 1 of 9 so tell me how on a democratic board that's votes on decisions so pleas etell me how is going to make all these sweeping changes you obviously believe he is going to achieve for you?
Serious explain how he is going to make this massive difference?
Russo, like any new board member would hopefully shake things up by asking a few questions.
Not about the senior coach which is the useless short cut of most critics but questions that have been raised here.
Has an objective evaluation been done on the assistant coaches - their methods, results and feedback?
Is the relationship between development and assistant coaches best practice?
Has an exit interview been done with Clarke and Bailey and what were their responses?
Are the results of the recruiting department, after ten years under Jackson, good enough in response to the Inside Football story mid-season?
Are the living arrangements of new recruits satisfactory given that Martin was boarded at the ex-presidents and numerous new boys were placed with other players or even people outside the club like Rioli?
Just a few of these topics - and there are lots more - may prompt solutions to what appear from the outside to be failures of process.
I guess the next question is - how do we know that these things haven't been done? How do we know if Russo will force them to do any of these things or other things if he gets elected?
The answer is we don't. I haven't heard anything come from Russo except the fact that the journo mentioned his financial contribution to the RFC FTF and that he is frustrated we haven't won a premiership. It would be very useful if he outlined exactly what he sees are the problems with the current board, how he will correct them and what he will bring to the table. If he can do that and it all makes good sense, I'd be happy to vote for him. However, he can't just sit there and state that he wants a premiership and expect to get elected.
-
Please tell me how Russo is going to win us flag?
Exactly what is he going?
He would be if elected 1 of 9 so tell me how on a democratic board that's votes on decisions so pleas etell me how is going to make all these sweeping changes you obviously believe he is going to achieve for you?
Serious explain how he is going to make this massive difference?
Russo, like any new board member would hopefully shake things up by asking a few questions.
Not about the senior coach which is the useless short cut of most critics but questions that have been raised here.
Has an objective evaluation been done on the assistant coaches - their methods, results and feedback?
Is the relationship between development and assistant coaches best practice?
Has an exit interview been done with Clarke and Bailey and what were their responses?
Are the results of the recruiting department, after ten years under Jackson, good enough in response to the Inside Football story mid-season?
Are the living arrangements of new recruits satisfactory given that Martin was boarded at the ex-presidents and numerous new boys were placed with other players or even people outside the club like Rioli?
Just a few of these topics - and there are lots more - may prompt solutions to what appear from the outside to be failures of process.
I guess the next question is - how do we know that these things haven't been done? How do we know if Russo will force them to do any of these things or other things if he gets elected?
The answer is we don't. I haven't heard anything come from Russo except the fact that the journo mentioned his financial contribution to the RFC FTF and that he is frustrated we haven't won a premiership. It would be very useful if he outlined exactly what he sees are the problems with the current board, how he will correct them and what he will bring to the table. If he can do that and it all makes good sense, I'd be happy to vote for him. However, he can't just sit there and state that he wants a premiership and expect to get elected.
Your first question - if any of these things have been done why do we continue to have the same arrangements regarding coaching, recruiting and player living. I suppose if you have the attitude of "Nothing to see here folks, nothing to see" you won't notice anything. That is why I want someone on the board who will at least ask some questions about UNCHANGED arrangements.
Your second point - it's very difficult to "outline exactly what he sees as the problems" when you are not part of confidential discussions. You seem to question whether there are any problems at Richmond so I don't think you would accept any comment from an alternative about even questioning things.
BTW Do you agree with the way that the last board changes were organised?
-
Please tell me how Russo is going to win us flag?
Exactly what is he going?
He would be if elected 1 of 9 so tell me how on a democratic board that's votes on decisions so pleas etell me how is going to make all these sweeping changes you obviously believe he is going to achieve for you?
Serious explain how he is going to make this massive difference?
Russo, like any new board member would hopefully shake things up by asking a few questions.
Not about the senior coach which is the useless short cut of most critics but questions that have been raised here.
Has an objective evaluation been done on the assistant coaches - their methods, results and feedback?
Is the relationship between development and assistant coaches best practice?
Has an exit interview been done with Clarke and Bailey and what were their responses?
Are the results of the recruiting department, after ten years under Jackson, good enough in response to the Inside Football story mid-season?
Are the living arrangements of new recruits satisfactory given that Martin was boarded at the ex-presidents and numerous new boys were placed with other players or even people outside the club like Rioli?
Just a few of these topics - and there are lots more - may prompt solutions to what appear from the outside to be failures of process.
I guess the next question is - how do we know that these things haven't been done? How do we know if Russo will force them to do any of these things or other things if he gets elected?
The answer is we don't. I haven't heard anything come from Russo except the fact that the journo mentioned his financial contribution to the RFC FTF and that he is frustrated we haven't won a premiership. It would be very useful if he outlined exactly what he sees are the problems with the current board, how he will correct them and what he will bring to the table. If he can do that and it all makes good sense, I'd be happy to vote for him. However, he can't just sit there and state that he wants a premiership and expect to get elected.
Your first question - if any of these things have been done why do we continue to have the same arrangements regarding coaching, recruiting and player living. I suppose if you have the attitude of "Nothing to see here folks, nothing to see" you won't notice anything. That is why I want someone on the board who will at least ask some questions about UNCHANGED arrangements.
Your second point - it's very difficult to "outline exactly what he sees as the problems" when you are not part of confidential discussions. You seem to question whether there are any problems at Richmond so I don't think you would accept any comment from an alternative about even questioning things.
I think you have missed my main point. The point is he hasn't said anything about what he hopes to do if he gets elected. You are the one that asked the questions. I would have hoped that it would have been him and not you that put forward those exact questions. How do you know he will do anything of what you have suggested? Why should I vote for him if he doesn't have a plan?
The club is currently experiencing its most stable period that I can remember, and I'm older than you I would have thought, having heard the 67 GF on the radio and attending the 69 GF. That stability is a great achievement on its own. The current board have also made the club financially stable with record membership numbers. Again, nothing to be scoffed at. Listening to the club you understand that they do acknowledge that we need on-field finals success despite these other achievements. The last thing we need is someone destabilising the board because they think they can win us a premiership.
So bottom line is we need to hear from Russo what he plans to do if he gets elected, not from posters like yourself, if he wishes to be part of a successful bid to win a board position.
-
BTW Do you agree with the way that the last board changes were organised?
Hopefully I've understood your question
For me the answer is no. But it is the result of the members accepting the recommendation of the Club CEO to change the constitution. We as members have no one to blame but ourselves
Facts are The changes to constitution a few years back that gave the board the power to appoint 1 director a year out of 3 vacancies was wrong. But sadly at the AGM when it was voted on only 3 people (with one of those 3 holding a proxy of another member) voted against it. As a result we are reaping what we sow.
but having said, I have no problem with anyone nominating for the right reasons. Unfortunately, Mr Russo as yet hasn't shown he's nominated for the right reasons. I want to hear what he offers to the board. What area can real add value to the club. It has to involve more than challenging and asking questions. You have to add value
I'd suggest that he doesn't need to know confidential info about the club to be able to outline these things and what value he can add.
-
Hasn't it been stated that he's 'campaign' will be outlined online shortly? Maybe I'm mistaken
-
Hasn't it been stated that he's 'campaign' will be outlined online shortly? Maybe I'm mistaken
Yes it has and I look forward to seeing what he has to say...
But right at the moment the only thing he has told us of note via his interview with the HUN was he's contributed over a $1 million bucks to the FTF and his company is the major sponsor of our VFL side.... shouldn't have made those the 2 main points of his "announcement". Just not a good look at all IMVHO as it is not relevant to whether he would make a good director. It doesn't guarantee it; it just means he has $$.
-
Hasn't it been stated that he's 'campaign' will be outlined online shortly? Maybe I'm mistaken
Yes it has and I look forward to seeing what he has to say...
But right at the moment the only thing he has told us of note via his interview with the HUN was he's contributed over a $1 million bucks to the FTF and his company is the major sponsor of our VFL side.... shouldn't have made those the 2 main points of his "announcement". Just not a good look at all IMVHO as it is not relevant to whether he would make a good director. It doesn't guarantee it; it just means he has $$.
Just because some pleb (Jon Anderson) reported that information in his article doesn't mean it was Joe Russo telling everyone in his announcement. Maybe you've seen a video or such that I haven't but from reading the article it doesn't appear like Russo was the one telling people that.
-
Just because some pleb (Jon Anderson) reported that information in his article doesn't mean it was Joe Russo telling everyone in his announcement. Maybe you've seen a video or such that I haven't but from reading the article it doesn't appear like Russo was the one telling people that.
I haven't seen any video, there hasn't been anything else bar the HUN interview.
With respect, how would Jon Anderson I would how much Russo contributed to the FTF? This isn't common knowledge, club certainly wouldn't tell him. So how did he find out? As for his company being the main sponsor of the VFL Adnerson wouldn't have gone looking for that either, he would have been told...so by who?
-
WP let me ask you this. Do you honestly believe we can win a flag with the current people we have in place? I dont and i have been saying it for years we dont spend enough and the people we spend on are not really efficient at their job. How does williams that ex dees looking clown still have a job? Vickery's old man. Max Bailey 2 year wonder. Come on.
I would like for us to spend the most on talented staff not the rubbish we have at the moment. I will be content with second place if willy gets to look at the books. 8th place whilst higher than the year aint worth the paper it is written on and by 2020 we should be in the top quartet if we want a chance at winning a flag.
Unlike you Angus I don't believe it is necessarily about how much you spend but what, how and who you spend it on. Hence, why I used the Bulldogs as an example. They aren't in the top ten of spend let alone top 4 but their development program is excellent. Just look at their VFL program, they are doing it the right way. Guarantee you they would be spending less than us in the area of development but I'd argue the development of their younger players is better than ours right now. That's what I mean by it's not always about how much but the "what, how and who"
I think I've made it very clear I don't like the way we approach our VFL set up and hopefully having McCrae back will mean this area will improve considerably. He was Director of Development at the Pies and their system via the VFL in making sure their kids were ready for AFL worked apart from them getting to finals ;D
You can bring in whoever you want, pay them truckloads but if the other parts of the program are not right then there is no guarantee of success. So again it isn't always about how much...
As for do I think the people we have in match day roles are the right mix? Some are some aren't. I have said many times I have an issue with John Vickery being at the club in an official role while his son is on the list. My view on that has not changed. As for Mark (non choco) Williams he is a 3 time premiership winning coach at VFL level. Which is 3 more than a few others in the coaches box so I reckon that may have something to with why he has a job. Do I rate him? I did originally but right now I think some fresh ideas and faces wouldn't go a stray.
Just on Max Bailey, I appreciate you never rated him but I know the young players did. Everyone of them I've spoken to during 2015 (one of the perks of being a player sponsor ;D) said the same thing and that was he taught them so much about preparation, dealing with tough times and professionalism. Like it or not that's the main role of a development coach, to teach and he did it very well
-
BTW Do you agree with the way that the last board changes were organised?
Hopefully I've understood your question
For me the answer is no. But it is the result of the members accepting the recommendation of the Club CEO to change the constitution. We as members have no one to blame but ourselves
Facts are The changes to constitution a few years back that gave the board the power to appoint 1 director a year out of 3 vacancies was wrong. But sadly at the AGM when it was voted on only 3 people (with one of those 3 holding a proxy of another member) voted against it. As a result we are reaping what we sow.
but having said, I have no problem with anyone nominating for the right reasons. Unfortunately, Mr Russo as yet hasn't shown he's nominated for the right reasons. I want to hear what he offers to the board. What area can real add value to the club. It has to involve more than challenging and asking questions. You have to add value
I'd suggest that he doesn't need to know confidential info about the club to be able to outline these things and what value he can add.
Actually no WP, you've got the wrong board fit-up.
Firstly the question was to a poster who demands so much from a board nominee.
Y&B Blood, do you agree with the way Speed and Walsh were APPOINTED to the board?
Also my post was a response to yours about one director having little influence on the board as a whole. As suggested by me, their best effect may be as an irritant to force questions. It was not meant as backing for a specific nominee as Y&B seems to take it.
-
BTW Do you agree with the way that the last board changes were organised?
Hopefully I've understood your question
For me the answer is no. But it is the result of the members accepting the recommendation of the Club CEO to change the constitution. We as members have no one to blame but ourselves
Facts are The changes to constitution a few years back that gave the board the power to appoint 1 director a year out of 3 vacancies was wrong. But sadly at the AGM when it was voted on only 3 people (with one of those 3 holding a proxy of another member) voted against it. As a result we are reaping what we sow.
but having said, I have no problem with anyone nominating for the right reasons. Unfortunately, Mr Russo as yet hasn't shown he's nominated for the right reasons. I want to hear what he offers to the board. What area can real add value to the club. It has to involve more than challenging and asking questions. You have to add value
I'd suggest that he doesn't need to know confidential info about the club to be able to outline these things and what value he can add.
Actually no WP, you've got the wrong board fit-up.
Firstly the question was to a poster who demands so much from a board nominee.
Y&B Blood, do you agree with the way Speed and Walsh were APPOINTED to the board?
Also my post was a response to yours about one director having little influence on the board as a whole. As suggested by me, their best effect may be as an irritant to force questions. It was not meant as backing for a specific nominee as Y&B seems to take it.
Whether I agree or not how Speed and Walsh were appointed is irrelevant to this. I was happy to see Speed on the board because I (rightly or wrongly) believed he brought in a wealth of experience in sport administration. You cannot get that experience by going out and buying it. Carl Walsh is a passionate Richmond man who also brings financial experience to the board. Many years ago he was very annoyed that Wizard backed Collingwood because he and many others high up in that firm were RFC supporters.
Property development per se does not have many skills sets that translate to sitting on a board. I'm not saying that Russo hasn't got anything to contribute either. However, he needs to outline what he brings to the table. We have a stable board that doesn't leak information - something that has been a long standing problem at our club in the past. Unless the person can convince me that he will make an improvement to the board, I will find it hard to support him. Telling people how much money you have tipped in doesn't impress me at all - hell if that were the case I might run for a board position lol! I just wish people would not announce challenges until they have their campaign ready - FFS they've been planning this for a while I would have hoped. By having it ready they could initially outline at least some of the ways they would improve the board and then they could inform us when their full plan of action will be released. By just coming out and telling us how frustrated they are that we haven't won a flag IMHO is just stupid. Every single RFC supporter has the same frustration. Does that mean every cashed up supporter should have a seat on the board? Obviously not. So I look forward to hearing what he plans to bring to the club.
-
FWIW Walsh has resigned
Wonder how he is going to be replaced? Me thinks it will be via the board appointed method
-
FWIW Walsh has resigned
Wonder how he is going to be replaced? Me thinks it will be via the board appointed method
Oops forgot about that WP. Thanks for the reminder. :thumbsup
-
when did he resign?
-
Whether I agree or not how Speed and Walsh were appointed is irrelevant to this. ......
However, he needs to outline what he brings to the table.......
I just wish people would not announce challenges until they have their campaign ready - FFS they've been planning this for a while I would have hoped. By having it ready they could initially outline at least some of the ways they would improve the board and then they could inform us when their full plan of action will be released.......
So I look forward to hearing what he plans to bring to the club.
How can you say that the way Speed and Walsh were appointed to the board is irrelevant but criticise Russo for not giving detailed plans about what problems he sees and what remedies he proposes.
At least we didn't have to worry about any plan from Speed or Walsh. Two board vacancies were created a month out from the AGM by the resignation of ten-year directors, the new directors were appointed and then deemed elected when no other nominees were offered.
http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=14359.msg266985#msg266985
-
Don't expect much a plan guys. Look at the clubs five pillars junk or whatever it was. Fluff sells to these people
-
Whether I agree or not how Speed and Walsh were appointed is irrelevant to this. ......
However, he needs to outline what he brings to the table.......
I just wish people would not announce challenges until they have their campaign ready - FFS they've been planning this for a while I would have hoped. By having it ready they could initially outline at least some of the ways they would improve the board and then they could inform us when their full plan of action will be released.......
So I look forward to hearing what he plans to bring to the club.
How can you say that the way Speed and Walsh were appointed to the board is irrelevant but criticise Russo for not giving detailed plans about what problems he sees and what remedies he proposes.
At least we didn't have to worry about any plan from Speed or Walsh. Two board vacancies were created a month out from the AGM by the resignation of ten-year directors, the new directors were appointed and then deemed elected when no other nominees were offered.
http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=14359.msg266985#msg266985
I didn't say the way they were elected was irrelevant. I said my thoughts on their appointment are irrelevant.
Speed's cv alone would have won me over. Walsh probably less so but is still more impressive than Russo's. When. you have the runs on the board your plans are less important to articulate than if you have no prior involvement in sports admin. If our club was a property development firm I would require less information from Russo as his success in the area would do all the talking. Does that make sense?
-
Walsh probably less so but is still more impressive than Russo's.
Have you seen Russo's CV or just made an assumption based on an arrogant generalisation of his field of expertise?
-
What's is penny and Dimmas plan again?
Takes two to tango
-
So no, you haven't seen his CV
-
So no, you haven't seen his CV
Other than owning Caydon, I don't know anything about the man. I don't think it's arrogant to expect to know a bit more about the man. He is hardly a household name when it cones to sports admin.
I would have thought it is up to him to sell himself if he wants to get on the board.
-
Walsh probably less so but is still more impressive than Russo's.
Have you seen Russo's CV or just made an assumption based on an arrogant generalisation of his field of expertise?
No need to get aggressive Smokey. I know a few developers and they are all great blokes. Doesn't mean they can run a club and doesn't mean that can't.
In my opinion the board has done a great job financially with the club. They're trying to support the football department. That's their job.
-
He asked you a reasonable question, how was that being aggressive?
-
He asked you a reasonable question, how was that being aggressive?
The addition of the word arrogant was an attack on me. It was completely unnecessary.
-
One other thing that concerns me about Russo is that he is 100% owner of Caydon. That means he is used to making decisions on his own. He doesn't have to sit at a table as an equal to anyone else. That's what you have to do as a board member.
Of course, he could be a great addition to our board and I could be wrong, but everything I've read so far hasn't persuaded me to vote for him. Mind you, he may change my mind when I hear his entire strategy on how he will improve the board and what he'll bring to the table.
-
Maybe he has a board, I know plenty of good sized privately owned businesses who appoint a board to ensure correct levels of accountability and governance.
-
Maybe he has a board, I know plenty of good sized privately owned businesses who appoint a board to ensure correct levels of accountability and governance.
I didn't say he doesn't have a board. I said he has no equal as he owns the company outright. Ultimately what he says goes.
-
You said
That means he is used to making decisions on his own.
While that could be true, it could also be completely wrong as HRT pointed out
-
You said
That means he is used to making decisions on his own.
While that could be true, it could also be completely wrong as HRT pointed out
That's why I clarified what I meant with the above statement.
-
when did he resign?
Back in late August the Annual Report says
-
Walsh probably less so but is still more impressive than Russo's.
Have you seen Russo's CV or just made an assumption based on an arrogant generalisation of his field of expertise?
No need to get aggressive Smokey. I know a few developers and they are all great blokes. Doesn't mean they can run a club and doesn't mean that can't.
In my opinion the board has done a great job financially with the club. They're trying to support the football department. That's their job.
No aggression here, just responding to your statement which I believe is arrogant if you don't know Russo's CV. My opinion of our current board is the same as yours, I have no problem with their performance at all but in this thread you have cast doubt and aspersions on Russo while admitting you knew nothing about him except him being a developer and sole proprietor thus making him less impressive as a board candidate than Speed or Walsh. That may very well end up being the truth but until you have more knowledge or facts to base your opinion on, or the benefit of hindsight to lean back on then your argument is flawed and frankly arrogant.
-
He asked you a reasonable question, how was that being aggressive?
The addition of the word arrogant was an attack on me. It was completely unnecessary.
I guess the bottom line is that if it was inappropriate the mods would have removed it. We don't need posters like yourself being the judge, jury and executioner.
So take a deep breath
Live by the sword, die by the sword pal
-
I should've quoted him instead of just replying. That way his original post would of been there for people to see :shh
-
Maybe he has a board, I know plenty of good sized privately owned businesses who appoint a board to ensure correct levels of accountability and governance.
I didn't say he doesn't have a board. I said he has no equal as he owns the company outright. Ultimately what he says goes.
Why would a privately owned company have appointed a board if it's owner wanted to make all the decisions? :huh
-
He asked you a reasonable question, how was that being aggressive?
The addition of the word arrogant was an attack on me. It was completely unnecessary.
I guess the bottom line is that if it was inappropriate the mods would have removed it. We don't need posters like yourself being the judge, jury and executioner.
So take a deep breath
Live by the sword, die by the sword pal
Two things pal. I doubt any Mods were up at 1am to adjudicate so my response.
I also highly doubt there is a sword here and I wont die from those comments or any others. They are water off a ducks back.
-
Maybe he has a board, I know plenty of good sized privately owned businesses who appoint a board to ensure correct levels of accountability and governance.
I didn't say he doesn't have a board. I said he has no equal as he owns the company outright. Ultimately what he says goes.
Why would a privately owned company have appointed a board if it's owner wanted to make all the decisions? :huh
Many privately owned companies have boards. It helps them get a spread of expert knowledge, ideas and opinions. Good business practice. However my concern on entrepreneurial people is that they often find it hard to work in team environments and sometimes lack corporate expertise on a broader scale.
-
He asked you a reasonable question, how was that being aggressive?
The addition of the word arrogant was an attack on me. It was completely unnecessary.
I guess the bottom line is that if it was inappropriate the mods would have removed it. We don't need posters like yourself being the judge, jury and executioner.
So take a deep breath
Live by the sword, die by the sword pal
Two things pal. I doubt any Mods were up at 1am to adjudicate so my response.
I also highly doubt there is a sword here and I wont die from those comments or any others. They are water off a ducks back.
OE is up at all sorts of times, the dudes committed. So why didn't you just leave it and at worst it would of been gone in the morning if it was going to be deleted
-
Maybe he has a board, I know plenty of good sized privately owned businesses who appoint a board to ensure correct levels of accountability and governance.
I didn't say he doesn't have a board. I said he has no equal as he owns the company outright. Ultimately what he says goes.
Why would a privately owned company have appointed a board if it's owner wanted to make all the decisions? :huh
Many privately owned companies have boards. It helps them get a spread of expert knowledge, ideas and opinions. Good business practice. However my concern on entrepreneurial people is that they often find it hard to work in team environments and sometimes lack corporate expertise on a broader scale.
Good point although I'd argue they'd be smart enough to work out being on a board is a different gig and their perspective alone gives a different viewpoint which may not always be part of the final outcome.
I would say that right now with a lack of alternate revenue streams and an inability to create an environment which is a true destination for elite player talent an entrepreneur might bring a different type of challenge to the board, the football executive and the club management.
-
Walsh probably less so but is still more impressive than Russo's.
Have you seen Russo's CV or just made an assumption based on an arrogant generalisation of his field of expertise?
No need to get aggressive Smokey. I know a few developers and they are all great blokes. Doesn't mean they can run a club and doesn't mean that can't.
In my opinion the board has done a great job financially with the club. They're trying to support the football department. That's their job.
No aggression here, just responding to your statement which I believe is arrogant if you don't know Russo's CV. My opinion of our current board is the same as yours, I have no problem with their performance at all but in this thread you have cast doubt and aspersions on Russo while admitting you knew nothing about him except him being a developer and sole proprietor thus making him less impressive as a board candidate than Speed or Walsh. That may very well end up being the truth but until you have more knowledge or facts to base your opinion on, or the benefit of hindsight to lean back on then your argument is flawed and frankly arrogant.
Yet if you read my posts I have pointed out that I thought a better strategy would have been not to say you were interested until you had something to say that would explain how you would improve the board. It wouldn't need to be a complete plan. Even a one or two line outline of your plans. I don't think spouting off how much money you have given and how you are frustrated that we haven't won a premiership is going to win many over. Because of this, I don't know much about him and I don't think it's arrogant to question what he will bring to the board. After all, it's up to him to convince the members to vote for him and he hasn't started off well in my opinion. I strongly disagree it is arrogant. I would have questioned anybody without sporting admin credentials the same way, not just property developers.
-
“The way different clubs report results can create confusion but the bottom line for Richmond supporters is that the true operating performance of our club is rock solid,” Richmond CEO Brendon Gale said.
“Richmond includes depreciation and amortisation costs when announcing its operating profit because - in our opinion - we think it provides an accurate reflection of the performance of the business. Other clubs choose not to include those costs when reporting their operating profit.
“By way of example, Collingwood reported an operating surplus of $1.88 million, before depreciation and amortisation. If Richmond had accounted for its result the same way, we would report an operating surplus of $1.9 million as opposed to $459K.
“There is no right or wrong way, we just thought it was worth clarifying the difference for our fans and to give them a level of comfort that the board is delivering our fans a very sound business.”
Full article: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2015-12-01/richmond-business-performance-rock-solid
-
“The way different clubs report results can create confusion but the bottom line for Richmond supporters is that the true operating performance of our club is rock solid,” Richmond CEO Brendon Gale said.
“Richmond includes depreciation and amortisation costs when announcing its operating profit because - in our opinion - we think it provides an accurate reflection of the performance of the business. Other clubs choose not to include those costs when reporting their operating profit.
“By way of example, Collingwood reported an operating surplus of $1.88 million, before depreciation and amortisation. If Richmond had accounted for its result the same way, we would report an operating surplus of $1.9 million as opposed to $459K.
“There is no right or wrong way, we just thought it was worth clarifying the difference for our fans and to give them a level of comfort that the board is delivering our fans a very sound business.”
Full article: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2015-12-01/richmond-business-performance-rock-solid
So we made more than Collingwood, all things being equal. Interesting. So the board is doing an excellent job......
-
Yeah but they also spent more no?
-
Depreciation of... What?
The light towers at punt road?
-
Depreciation of... What?
The light towers at punt road?
Are you really that naive?
Depreciation on all fixed Assets
Buildings
Equipment, you know everything in he gym for example
Computers,
Furniture
Want me to go on?
-
Can we claim depreciation of the players?
-
Haha
-
Depreciation of... What?
The light towers at punt road?
Are you really that naive?
Depreciation on all fixed Assets
Buildings
Equipment, you know everything in he gym for example
Computers,
Furniture
Want me to go on?
Yes please. I am unconvinced.
-
If i don't appreciTe the club does it mean I depreciate them?
-
:lol :lol
-
.... Computers :lol
-
.... Computers :lol
If you don't believe in depreciation and amortisation then you should be thrilled we made a 1.9 million profit
-
I'm stoked we should be able to prop up gws and melbourne
Well done penny :bow
-
.... Computers :lol
If you don't believe in depreciation and amortisation then you should be thrilled we made a 1.9 million profit
:clapping :lol
-
.... Computers :lol
Yep
Consider fixed assets
You're obviously not doing a business course at Uni or if you are you've obviously not done the compulsory accounting component
-
.... Computers :lol
Yep
Consider fixed assets
You're obviously not doing a business course at Uni or if you are you've obviously not done the compulsory accounting component
Uni ???, posts like a pre schooler
-
Play the ball taztiger, not the man. You don't exactly have a clue either
-
.... Computers :lol
If you don't believe in depreciation and amortisation then you should be thrilled we made a 1.9 million profit
:lol
-
Should of leased those crap laptops, aye
-
.... Computers :lol
Yep
Consider fixed assets
You're obviously not doing a business course at Uni or if you are you've obviously not done the compulsory accounting component
Anyone who has a business would know this WP.
Some around here are still using an abacus I imagine. :thumbsup
-
Play the ball taztiger, not the man. You don't exactly have a clue either
Pot Kettle Black
-
Good that you admit it son, first step in your journey to being a better man