i dont know what period you are talking about but im talking about three men. miller casey and wallace. the period we are talking about on this thread or perhaps ive read this thread wrong. the time period is the end of 99 to the end of 09. the time frame of these three men at our club. is this not a thread about miller wallace and thru association casey as their boss.
The original article was an interview with Miller in which he gave his opinion/view on what were the failings of the club during his time - his time being 02 to 08 so 1999 has no relevance at all. Unless.................................you happen to believe that other factors were involved in the lack of success at the club in which case you should be prepared to accept all the factors over all the years and if that's the case then accept that our problems started a long long time before 1999. And that is my point - Miler and Wallace failed in their charter during their time at the club but they weren't the only reason we failed and they are entitled to point out what they saw as the other reasons. Miller didn't say he was blameless but he did elaborate on the other factors as he saw them and that is entirely reasonable.
casey came to the club at a time when we could start to channel money into critical areas.
Very wrong. The club was in no position to start channeling money into other areas when Casey took over. As you correctly point out, it had just recovered from near bankruptcy to trading in the black but it was in no position of strength to start spending in deficient areas - in fact, the Casey board's cavalier attitude to spending took us straight back to a perilous financial position because we had no financial foundation to embark on such a stupid activity.
hmm i wonder whos kidding himself.
Exactly.
i dont kid myself or about the the perilous state of the rfc club some may put their heads up their behinds and pretend all is well but not this little black duck.
You didn't do a bad job of kidding yourself about the state when Casey took over.
just one more thing as well lets not forget gary march was an integral part of the board that sat back and allowed casey and miller free reign board menbers should not be absolved of blame either there were no checks and balances because the board failed to do its job.
i will give march some credit though he seems to have actually learnt something from the casey period.while i can never trust him i can forgive him as long as does not repeat past mistakes.
it took a fair bit of doing to prise casey out of the place and proved just as hard to get rid of miller. after all fool supporters voted miller onto the board while he was head of footy in a way making him accountable to no one.
how any supporters could vote a ticket back into power that plunged the club into such massive debt with such abysmal performce and total lack of direction is beyond me. theres no fool like a richmond fool.
Gee, forgive me for thinking that you see others as being responsible for the failure also, not just Miller and Wallace. Pretty sure thats what Miller said in his interview too.
we want to hope we now have processes in place that allows us to sack any under performing employee of the club. including the president if need be.
We already have those processes in place. In fact, they have been in place all along. Our problem has been that others have not exercised sound judgment in the use of those processes, and that also includes everyone from the president down to those members who voted for the Casey/Miller ticket and all the managerial staff in between.
Gee, sounds like others might have had some responsibility in getting the club to where it is today. Now let me think.......................where have I heard that before.
as i said if wallace march and miller are allowed to paint a false picture it will only reflect poorly on the rfc as a mob who continues to eat their own and this is patently not true.
shockingly run yep we all know that and cant argue it its the truth. but its patently poor form when its those who ran the club so poorly who are painting the picture of having their knees cut of after failing for so long.
Why is it patently poor form to talk the truth as he sees it? Please point out one part of his interview that is incorrect in fact. Maybe the truth cuts a bit too deep for some to handle or maybe some just have a blind hatred or prejudice and it suits their agenda to single out blame.
lol so you are basically agreeing with most of what i say but arguing the point sheesh. a man who wants his cake and eat it to. your a funny man bandit.
lets see what actually do we disagree on here. the time frame.
firstly of course everyone agrees we have been crap since 82 but in particular the age of the nd 86 onwards. just my opinion.
so the article is about millers time at the club. so you say 02 to 08 and you would be correct but the fact is miller and wallace came to the club under the casey tenure they were intrinsically linked without casey there would be no miller. you may think it not relevant to go back to 2000 but i certainly do. the state of the list the state of the clubs finances are all relevant for the entire casy tenure. its the reason why they appointed miller in the first place. so yeah i have gone back a couple of extra yrs. shoot me.
hmm another thing we have disagreed on is weather the club was in position to increase spending in critical areas.
the answer to that is yes. daphne was filthy he was forced out under the lack of funding for the footy dept pretext.
if daphne had stayed i have no doubt the footy dept would have got more spending. it would have been the start.not the be all but a start. the club was out of debt it was in a position to start spending more in the critical areas. daphne had actually done the hard yards and gone thru the pain only to have the rug pulled out from under him.
you are right casey and miller blew thousands sheesh miller went over budget 800k one season and we had nothing to show for it.
hmm what else oh yeah. poor form. lets just say if miller has said it as he sees it, it does not necesarily make it right now does it. hence the replies on this entire thread.
you may disagree but it is a bit rich when the principle player and main man responsible for on field performance and the footy dept, blames the lack of loyalty and lack of money for his poor performance .well i will set the record straight. this bloke recieved more loylaty than probably any other administrator in our history from not only his own board but the supporters as well. he along with casey wasted that much money in the early days it was not funny. it was primarily because of casey / miller that later on we had no money yet he uses this as an excuse.
hmm what else oh yeh i think most agree you do indeed kid yourself.
anyway i think with every thing else we have said exactly the same thing but you have your knickers in a knot for some reason.
i think once again you need to read a little more closely what has been said.
finally for me 2000 to 2008 casey miller and wallace are the ones MOSTLY responsible for the debacle of a decade i dont believe anyone has said they were soley responsible yet your on your high horse arguing it.
for me what its worth the article paints a picture of dissent in the ranks a lack of loyalty and no money and i disagree. there was money when he first came and the board certainly stuck fat as a whole despite the the atrocious performance both on and of the field.
of course these three have to shoulder most of the blame they were the key players.
had to lol at miller still trying to live of the back of his recruiting carey. he seems to still think hes some sort of guru when it comes to spotting talent. its because he was so poor in this area that we are stuffed onfield today. sheesh he over spent 800k yet none went to recruiting.
