By Jake Niall
realfooty.theage.com.au
May 27, 2004
A Richmond legend of the golden 1960s and '70s was once asked why the Tigers had become the least successful club of the past two decades. How, after five fearsome flags from seven grand final appearances over 15 years, had they supplanted St Kilda as the competition rabble?
It wasn't just instability or political infighting - the usual suspects in the case of Richmond failure. "They've never had a business culture," said the former champion.
It was an inspired explanation, because it gets to the root of the Richmond disease, rather than the familiar symptoms of sackings, poor teams and chronic instability, particularly at board level.
The Richmond Football Club has only ever been the Richmond footy club, never Richmond incorporated. In that sense, it resembles Collingwood, before Eddie McGuire, when a fiasco was a collective noun for Collingwood's business dealings.
For Richmond, it remains an extraordinary indictment that a club with one of the competition's larger latent supporter bases is unable to break even, much less turn a decent profit. The departure of chief executive Ian Campbell yesterday continues the pattern of fiscal ineptitude.
Just as the Australian economy was once tied to the price of wool and iron ore, Richmond's financial position remains utterly dependent upon on-field results. This is apparent again in 2004, despite the club's pre-season optimism that it would be in the black, regardless of how the team fared.
The culture, to a degree, derives from the supporters. Listen to the infighting fury on talkback radio after a loss. They'll blame the coach, Joel Bowden and Richo. But have you ever heard an irate Tiger fan say, "Our business plan is stuffed", or, "We don't have enough sponsorship," or even, "Why can't we make money?"
Perhaps, the vengeful hordes should begin to take a look, not simply at botched kicks and missed tackles, but at the holes in the balance sheet, because there is an undeniable connection between the red ink off the field and what happens on it.
Richmond was weak in the 1980s because it was broke and the club remained precarious for much of the '90s. There have been brief moments of robust solvency, but largely the club has operated on low revenues and relied on winning games to generate gate receipts, memberships and coterie support. Corporate support has been - and remains - astonishingly low.
Some Richmond insiders believe the club was on the verge of establishing a business culture when Leon Daphne was forced out of the presidency - largely by on-field failure - at the end of 1999, and replaced by what became the Clinton Casey board.
Yet, even in the most fruitful years of Daphne's presidency, the Tigers lived hand to mouth and lacked the brand - to use the modern jargon - to attract the best off-field personnel.
Unable to generate money or respect in the manner of Essendon and Collingwood, the Tigers have difficulty attracting even the best of their own.
Kevin Sheedy and Mick Malthouse are merely the best known examples of capable Richmond-reared people whom the club has been unable to attract. Neil Balme, Barry Richardson and Noel Judkins are others employed by rivals, while the club remains without an ex-Richmond player on the board.
It helps if you have money, which would enable the club to buy expertise. If there were sponsors galore, shiny facilities, plenty of staff and a semblance of stability, the prodigal sons might contemplate a return. Malthouse, perhaps, would not have considered Collingwood in the middle of 1998.
Prior to Danny Frawley's hiring, Mark Thompson knocked back the coaching position, preferring the stability of the Frank Costa-Brian Cook regime to the uncertain climate at Tigerland. Though he started with a weaker playing list at Geelong than he would have at Richmond, Thompson's choice has been vindicated.
http://realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2004/05/26/1085461833739.html
