Former Players join boardroom battle

[1980]

1980, it's only been since Casey realised that we were going nowhere that he had to do something to change things.  Hence the appointment of Miller.  The changes made since his arrival and the subsequent appointments of Wallace and Wright have not had time to see any results as yet.  We need to give them that time first.

But people are hell bent on sabotaging things when it seems we actually have the deep seated problems within this Club finally nailed and we know what to do about them.

If people don't want Casey then don't vote for him.  But if they want things to change, don't vote for the Alternatives, they'll just take us back to what we had the last two or so decades.

Read the writing on the wall people.

Thats not the way I see it. Up until this year, that is, Year 5 of 5 years in charge, Clinton Casey had full support from his board. It was only the end of last season when the issue of recontracting Frawley and the fact that Casey did not share the clubs financial results with his board that some of the board members dissented. He had full support until then. In fact, it was preseason this year when a couple of them raised issues with Casey about the way he was running the club.

So he was given 4 years of full support from his board. None of us heard a peep from any board member being unhappy with Casey for 4 years.

Just like Miller argued Frawley shouldnt be sacked for the sack of unity and to lose our reputation for sacking coaches, if indeed thats why he argued to give Frawley the extra year, because I shudder to think he actually thought Frawley could turn it around in season 2004, the same way the Casey board thought unity at the board level came above all else for 4 years. It came to a head when the clubs losses were not shared with the board before they were made public. And the fact there was a lot of evasiveness from Casey for many months not just with the board, but also with the members about what the loss was going to be.

And all this hoo ha about Miller appointing Wallace and Casey should get the credit for hiring Miller and the sun suddenly is shining. Wallace could have been RFC coach for season 2004 had Miller not argued to renew Frawley's contract. He was available, out of a job, and facing a long time out of footy, just like Rodney Eade was.
Had he convinced Kevin Sheedy to join us, then he'd have earned his self-promoted reputation for being a smart footy operator. If anything, we over paid for Wallace by chasing him one year later than we should have. A year ago he was a vermin that ditched the dogs for a richer role at the swans, and going cheap. This year due to the bad playing performances of both us and the Hawks, suddenly he became the messiah.

[Tiger Spirit]

Some people want a profitable Club and I want the changes that will ensure the deep seated cultural issues within the Club are solved.

With Casey's initiative, he has started the changes that I've been wanting to see for years.

If all that's important to people is money then go support the Alternatives, just don't expect any success.

[1980]

Some people want a profitable Club and I want the changes that will ensure the deep seated cultural issues within the Club are solved.

With Casey's initiative, he has started the changes that I've been wanting to see for years.

If all that's important to people is money then go support the Alternatives, just don't expect any success.

You make out as if we were giants on the field whilst Casey has been at the helm. We suck on and off the field. I just dont see how you've been able to wipe from your memory the wooden spoon Casey brought the club this year. It was only 2 months ago for goodness sake. And he's had 5 years to make a difference and change things.

[mightytiges]

Nice spin MT. But you've made no mention of the fact that Francis Bourke supports Casey being kicked out of the club. The point of the article is about Francis Bourke. You've gone a long way to ignore it.

That's why the Hun has Barrot in the heading because the article was about Francis Bourke  .

Where's the spin? Caro's and the Hun's articles were conflicting in regards to Barrot's support. I said "someone is telling fibs" and after today it shows that that was the Hun and not Caro in this case.

As for Francis Bourke or any ex-player or official who comes out in support for either side, IMO it will make a big difference to many Tiger fans but personally it won't alter my view. I listen to what they have to say as I did today on SEN but unless I hear substance to back up their arguments for change then to me it's just their opinion which is no more valid than mine or any other Tigers' member.

I for one am not going to told that everything was hunky dorey at Tigerland back in 1999 simply because we made a profit. What a joke that is! There's no disputing Casey's stuffed up big time but it's ludicrous to blame all the ills at the RFC on him. We've been crap for the past 20 years not just the last 5 and I simply don't intend to replace twiddledee with twiddledum just for the sake of change. Yeah that mentality has got us far all these years hasn't it. I will sit down and from the 35 candidates or so carefully decide which 9  I believe should steer our Club on it's new direction. Remember we're voting for 9 individuals not tickets. Hey we might end up with a new board without Casey, Schwab and Welsh.

[WilliamPowell]

And all this hoo ha about Miller appointing Wallace and Casey should get the credit for hiring Miller and the sun suddenly is shining. Wallace could have been RFC coach for season 2004 had Miller not argued to renew Frawley's contract. He was available, out of a job, and facing a long time out of footy, just like Rodney Eade was.

Firstly, Danny Frawley was contracted for 2004 - he was given a contract extension after 2001 - that was for 2003 & 2004. The only thing that was removed was a stupid clause that tied his contract to making finals - have no doubt there still would have been some sort of payout.

Everyone keeps going on about money and the decision to honour Frawley's contract at the end of the day was about money. If we had sacked Frawley at the end of 2003 we would have had to pay him for 2004 and as result it would be highly unlikely that we could have afforded Wallace, Eade or any other experienced coach - we would have been stuck with a Clarkson (and after the Hawls draft efforts this would not have been good ) or worse still another Frawley.

[mightytiges]

Also who's to say for sure that Wallace (ignoring his Sydney contract  ) would've taken up our offer to coach us a year ago if we had got rid of Spud mid-contract. Based on past history we would have ended up with just another Frawley not just for this year but also for 2005 . 

[mightytiges]

It was only 2 months ago for goodness sake. And he's had 5 years to make a difference and change things.

The club had been deluding itself for 20 years. The past 5 years under Casey were no different. Just have to look at the ridiculous decision making in that time to see that. However, the past 2-3 months has seen 100% more positive direction, long-term planning and implementation of those plans at the Club than the past 20 years combined. Helps when you finally employ professionals at every level to run the place. As much as Casey oversaw combined $3m losses in the past 2 years and a wooden spoon, he has also overseen the desperately needed restructuring of our Club that past boards failed to do. Yeah we can continue to throw up our hands in self-pity and anger about 2004 but I'd rather just get on with the future. Whoever wins this election will benefit from the changes and tough decisins that have already taken place provided they don't interfere with the course the Club is now on.     

[WilliamPowell]

IM(ever so)HO - who ever wins would have to stick to the new business plan that has been implemented - never lose sight of the fact that it has AFL backing and in these times that is so very important even if most people wish it wasn't.

Seriously think about it..........

I mean do the alternatives or any other person nominating intend to walk into Punt Road sit in the board room and say to Steven Wright and the rest of the Admin team - "loved what was in the FTB Steve, you know your 10 point plan great stuff..... but you gotta turf it because it has links to Casey and we cannot have that!" 

Hmmmm................ I think not.

For the first time in over a decade I am genuinely excited about the future, rather than the excitement being some sort of deluded form of hope...

[Tiger Spirit]

1980, we’ve sucked for longer than just 5 years.  But you tell me who has the answers to our problems.  Did the previous Boards?

I never got to vote for a President who had no idea about the Richmond or AFL footy culture.   But we got him, for better or worse.  He was deluded, like the rest of them, that there were problems.  But, given time, before we shaft anyone who tries to fix things, he has shown that he can and will do something about the issues that have held this Club back.

Because he didn’t understand the culture of the place, it took three years for him to work out we were going nowhere and the depth of our problems.  Firstly, he acknowledged we had problems, unlike others before him.  Secondly, he acknowledged that he (and I guess his Board) didn’t know hot fix those things, so Miller was identified as someone who did.

From that decision, we are now starting to see the effects that has made to the whole Club.  I’m sorry that it’s taken so long, but why aren’t you complaining about the previous 20 years before that.  Or are you happy with that?

Casey seems to have more of a handle on fixing anything than the Alternative Group do.  That’s why he gets my support.

On the other hand, the Alternative group has given us no real answers to anything.  From their campaign, are we to just assume they don't think there has been anything wrong with the culture at RFC?  Or do we just assume they know how to fix everything?

They seem happy enough to agree with every change that Casey has implemented, but somehow they reckon he’s incompetent.  How does that work?

[1980]

And all this hoo ha about Miller appointing Wallace and Casey should get the credit for hiring Miller and the sun suddenly is shining. Wallace could have been RFC coach for season 2004 had Miller not argued to renew Frawley's contract. He was available, out of a job, and facing a long time out of footy, just like Rodney Eade was.

Everyone keeps going on about money and the decision to honour Frawley's contract at the end of the day was about money. If we had sacked Frawley at the end of 2003 we would have had to pay him for 2004 and as result it would be highly unlikely that we could have afforded Wallace, Eade or any other experienced coach - we would have been stuck with a Clarkson (and after the Hawls draft efforts this would not have been good ) or worse still another Frawley.

I'd rather the club lost $2.3m paying out a crap coach like Frawley and save me the trouble of watching a crap team embarrass the RFC jumper this year, than lose $2.3m and make me watch a crap coach and a crap team for the entire 2004 season.

If ever there was a good reason to lose money, its getting rid of Danny Frawley!

[1980]

Also who's to say for sure that Wallace (ignoring his Sydney contract  ) would've taken up our offer to coach us a year ago if we had got rid of Spud mid-contract. Based on past history we would have ended up with just another Frawley not just for this year but also for 2005 . 

And who's to say we wouldnt?

Wallace would have jumped at the opportunity to get back into coaching after the humiliation of the Sydney debacle. There were a lot of ppl in football, and he was one of them, that thought he'd never get to coach again. A year is a long time in footy and the wheel turned for him. But he wouldve been cheaper iof we signed him when no-one wanted him, rather than when there was an auction going.

No wonder we're losing so much money. And by the by, so did the Roos when Miller was there. That's why they got rid of him. He bankrupted the place. 

[1980]

It was only 2 months ago for goodness sake. And he's had 5 years to make a difference and change things.

The club had been deluding itself for 20 years. The past 5 years under Casey were no different. Just have to look at the ridiculous decision making in that time to see that. However, the past 2-3 months has seen 100% more positive direction, long-term planning and implementation of those plans at the Club than the past 20 years combined. Helps when you finally employ professionals at every level to run the place. As much as Casey oversaw combined $3m losses in the past 2 years and a wooden spoon, he has also overseen the desperately needed restructuring of our Club that past boards failed to do. Yeah we can continue to throw up our hands in self-pity and anger about 2004 but I'd rather just get on with the future. Whoever wins this election will benefit from the changes and tough decisins that have already taken place provided they don't interfere with the course the Club is now on.     

2-3 months doesnt wipe away 5 years of negligence. And developing a plan and executing it are 2 different things. And I'm voting against Casey because once the heat of the board election is off, he's going right back to running things his way. Lots of yes men on the board, and the plan out the window.

A leopord doesnt change his spots, and a man with an ego doesnt become accountable to his members either. Casey is not president because of his love for the Richmond footy club. No-ne had even heard of the clown before they put him up for the job. He wasnt known as a major contributor, corporate doner prominent member or anything.

He is pres for his own ego. And his 5 year track record demonstrates it.

[mightytiges]

Wallace would have jumped at the opportunity to get back into coaching after the humiliation of the Sydney debacle. There were a lot of ppl in football, and he was one of them, that thought he'd never get to coach again. A year is a long time in footy and the wheel turned for him. But he wouldve been cheaper iof we signed him when no-one wanted him, rather than when there was an auction going.

No wonder we're losing so much money. And by the by, so did the Roos when Miller was there. That's why they got rid of him. He bankrupted the place. 

Wallace wants to be a career coach so yes I agree 1980 he would've wanted to coach again as soon as possible but not at Richmond prior to this year no matter how much we begged. Anyone half-decent quite rightly wouldn't go near the place as our blame and sack the coach mentality if they didn't perform short-term miracles meant the job was a career coach killer. If we had sacked Spud we would have only perpetuated this perception. Fortunately we finally chose stability and copped the short-term crap to rid us of those bad old ways. As a result we had the best available coaches competing to coach us and snagged the man we wanted.   

As for Miller. He had become CEO of the Kangaroos by that stage (they now get $1-2m from the CBF which they didn't get before to keep their heads above water). He isn't CEO at Tigerland. He's employed quite rightly where his expertise is and that is overseeing the football department.   

[mightytiges]

2-3 months doesnt wipe away 5 years of negligence. And developing a plan and executing it are 2 different things. And I'm voting against Casey because once the heat of the board election is off, he's going right back to running things his way. Lots of yes men on the board, and the plan out the window.

A leopord doesnt change his spots, and a man with an ego doesnt become accountable to his members either. Casey is not president because of his love for the Richmond footy club. No-ne had even heard of the clown before they put him up for the job. He wasnt known as a major contributor, corporate doner prominent member or anything.

He is pres for his own ego. And his 5 year track record demonstrates it.

There hasn't been accountability at Tigerland towards members for years. The board had become a play thing for a select minority to fight over and handover. You just have to count the number of elections we've have (or rather haven't). Casey's original appointment a clear example of that. We only got this election because both sides wouldn't give in to the demands of the other side and they were forced  to come to a truce - a full board election. Now that the average member by luck or by design will finally have his/her say we must continue each year to make whoever wins accountable by voicing our right for them to face all of us before a vote. 

As for his loyalties, I couldn't careless to be honest. Wallace and Miller aren't Richmond people either. More interested in a successful future for the Club and whether he or someone better belongs on the board to deliver it. If the only criteria needed for the president (and the board) to bring us success was for them to be long-term loyal and passionate Richmond people then we wouldn't have gone through the last 20 years as the worst performing Club in League.