One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on August 14, 2009, 04:07:06 AM
-
The Tigers will offer a maximum three-year contract to the new coach, two years less than Terry Wallace was given when he was appointed at the end of 2004.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25925629-2722,00.html
Are you happy with the new coach getting a 3-year contract?
-
I would have thought 2 years would have been better. 1st stage should be to get rid of the crap on the list, start bringing in more kids and developing a new culture aimed at getting success. Hopefully real evidence of improvement could be seen sometime in year 2, if so then the new coach could then get a further 2 or 3 years.
-
I would go 2 years with an option of a 3rd
-
The article does say maximum so it implies that this is the absolute most we will offer, not that we will definitely offer it.
I'm with WP. 2 years with an option on a 3rd based on performance. If the coach is doing well after 2 then you would probably see a new contract negotiated then anyway.
-
Surely it would have to be 2 years, havent they got any idea down there :banghead :banghead :banghead
-
Missleading thread title
-
I don't see the problem with a 3 year contract. Coaches are going to want that long to get poo in order, especially the way some of our player think making an effort is, to turn their ethics around. Whether you like it or not, it takes time to change these things, and 3 years is the standard maximum contract for rookie coaches. Make it performance based for the 3rd year and they have something to aim for.
-
It might mean the difference between getting the bloke you want and the bloke with his hand up. Big difference. 3 years is fine.
-
3 years is right. Would Clarkson have got a third year after going 14, 11? You can't really set reasonable quantifiable targets for a coach who is rebuilding the list and demanding his own style over two years IMHO.
-
2 year contract based on win/loss & progress of skills with no options of 3rd year.
Time to get TUFF Richmond.
-
A two year contract would not give us as much room to sack the coach in his last year as three year contract would.
-
A two year contract would not give us as much room to sack the coach in his last year as three year contract would.
we might wanna sack him after the first year if his anything like Wallet or Rawlings game styles
-
A two year contract would not give us as much room to sack the coach in his last year as three year contract would.
we might wanna sack him after the first year if his anything like Wallet or Rawlings game styles
Well then he's destined to fail in your eyes because very few coaches have turned a perceived poor teams game plan around and into their own wishes in one off-season, as players have habits, and it takes time to break them.
Classic examples: Mark Thompson and Ross Lyon.
-
Well then he's destined to fail in your eyes because very few coaches have turned a perceived poor teams game plan around and into their own wishes in one off-season, as players have habits, and it takes time to break them.
Classic examples: Mark Thompson and Ross Lyon.
Ross Lyon would have done enough in two years to get a contract extension, but is still a good example in that it took him two years to get the team playing his style with a good senior core to build around (who is our N Riewoldt, Ball, Hayes, Dal Santo, Kosi etc etc etc).
-
No Problem with three years, you cant send a signal of no confidence before the coach even starts - surely!!
-
3 years is fine with me.
-
Yep I'm fine with 3 years also. As many have said, I can't see a new coach turning our club around in one season and then being prepared to negotiate contract extensions in only his second year.
-
Are you happy with the new coach getting a 3-year contract?
Sure beats 5. :P
Three is about right.
-
Yep, 3 is fine by me.
-
Clarkson started with a 2 year deal and it worked for him ...
Still think 2yrs with an option of a 3rd ;D
-
I definitely think 3 years is a workable time frame
0 - 3 months First rumblings from the feral supporters, game plan is crap theme, this bloke doesn't know what he is doing....
6 months Media latches on and joins the "tigers are crap" theme
Growing army of the ferals gets louder
1 year Rumours of board coups start to surface
Coterie groups start becoming more vocal in their "bring back the good old days"
1.5 years Coach under pessure from media and supporters to guarentee date when we will play finals
2 years Board backs coach 100%
2.2 years Coach sacked caretaker Wayne Campbell appointed
2.4 years Calls from media, coterie groups, supporters to appoint Sheedy
3 years New coach appointed
Yep 3 years should be enough to fit all that in.
-
2 years with an option of a 3 - get out of jail if it goes pear shaped, see 2007 for Wallace.
Announce it as 3 year deal, forget next year. Judge the coach on the 2nd year and beyond.
Looking at the shape and fitness of our players it'll take more than 1 pre season.
-
Clarkson started with a 2 year deal and it worked for him ...
Right you are WP - I had thought he got 3.
Still, if we went 14, 11 next two years would we be able to see the bigger picture if some of the youngsters were coming along nicely, or would the usual suspects demand change?
I still vote 3 years.
-
I definitely think 3 years is a workable time frame
0 - 3 months First rumblings from the feral supporters, game plan is crap theme, this bloke doesn't know what he is doing....
6 months Media latches on and joins the "tigers are crap" theme
Growing army of the ferals gets louder
1 year Rumours of board coups start to surface
Coterie groups start becoming more vocal in their "bring back the good old days"
1.5 years Coach under pessure from media and supporters to guarentee date when we will play finals
2 years Board backs coach 100%
2.2 years Coach sacked caretaker Wayne Campbell appointed
2.4 years Calls from media, coterie groups, supporters to appoint Sheedy
3 years New coach appointed
Yep 3 years should be enough to fit all that in.
[/quote
I would call you cynical if it what you posted wasnt so awfully close to the truth!