Cotchin wants to keep no.9 (Will likely be named captain by end of the week)

[peggles]

let him keep the 9. 

if the board rejects it and forces cotchy to wear the no.17, they are flogs.

[WilliamPowell]

Footy Dept surely doesn't recommend anyone. Wouldn't they just inform the board of who the players voted in as captain? Then they approve it unless it is Dan Connors who the boys voted to represent the club

Why does this number 17 thing need to be reversed at board level? Was it even a rule in the first place rather than an option for the captain? Just let Chimp wear #9 FFS WGAF

Coach in answer to the 2nd part - it needs to be ratified/reversed because the RFC is a registered company and bound by Corps Law. Board resolutions (that was the word I was looking for before not rule  ) are recorded in the the board minutes which are legal documents of a company (they are actually reviewed as part of an audit). Anything passed as a resolution becomes binding, therefore anything that is "binding" to bypass it must be put forward as a another resolution and an ratified for it to be reversed. The Number 17 for the captain was a resolution and therefore is binding.

As for the first bit, your are correct the footy dept will pass all the info onto the board but I think you will find buried away somewhere in the constitution it says the appointment of captain must be ratified by the board. As I said all clubs do it. Who could forget at Port Adel Mark Williams wanted Kane Cornes for Captain and the Board vettoed it and appointed Carsisi instead 

As I said it's a very interesting debate 

[WilliamPowell]

Example I found:

THEY used these on the JD memorial game, i bought one at auction
iirc it was against the dawks when they wore it

Nah it was against Port Adelaide at Etihad

[one-eyed]

Example I found:

THEY used these on the JD memorial game, i bought one at auction
iirc it was against the dawks when they wore it

Nah it was against Port Adelaide at Etihad

It was against Hawthorn ...


Happy little campers weren't we then 


The Port game at Etihad had the Jack Dyer tribute banner


Source: Getty Images

[one-eyed]

Caro said the idea was created under the Clinton Casey admininstration and anything that admin came up with you'd scrap lol.

[WilliamPowell]

It was against Hawthorn ...

Stand corrected

I have Leon Cameron's guernsey from that day = his last AFL game, with the 17 on it 

Caro said the idea was created under the Clinton Casey admininstration and anything that admin came up with you'd scrap lol.

So Caro doesn't know the finer details of why they introduced it then?

[Hellenic Tiger]

Caro said the idea was created under the Clinton Casey admininstration and anything that admin came up with you'd scrap lol.

Ditto

[Phil Mrakov]

It was against Hawthorn ...

Stand corrected

I have Leon Cameron's guernsey from that day = his last AFL game, with the 17 on it 

Caro said the idea was created under the Clinton Casey admininstration and anything that admin came up with you'd scrap lol.

So Caro doesn't know the finer details of why they introduced it then?

Can I have it?

[DCrane]

A little No.17 on the front, no thanks. The club needs to get rid of the idea altogether. It is not a 'tradition' of the club, it was only a recent idea and it was bad.
Trent Cotchin is too good to be living in anyone's shadow.

And like the Board is going to knock back Cotchin's request when they are about to re-open contract discussions with him 
This is one of those moments where the board realises that it is powerless to do anything.

[Mr Magic]

The '17' idea was an emotional knee-jerk reaction.
Jack Dyer's memory will be rightly well preserved at Tigerland through many channels  but it's time this gimmick was put out to pasture.

Cotchin will carve out his own piece of Richmond history and make the number 9 revered.

[Smokey]

Caro said the idea was created under the Clinton Casey admininstration and anything that admin came up with you'd scrap lol.

So Caro doesn't know the finer details of why they introduced it then?

Maybe not WP but it's bloody hard to argue with her line of thinking.

[Francois Jackson]

The '17' idea was an emotional knee-jerk reaction.
Jack Dyer's memory will be rightly well preserved at Tigerland through many channels  but it's time this gimmick was put out to pasture.

Cotchin will carve out his own piece of Richmond history and make the number 9 revered.

got it in one really, 

[yellowandback]

The '17' idea was an emotional knee-jerk reaction.
Jack Dyer's memory will be rightly well preserved at Tigerland through many channels  but it's time this gimmick was put out to pasture.

Cotchin will carve out his own piece of Richmond history and make the number 9 revered.

Maybe but why does it becomes the players decision? 

[Eat_em_Alive]

So hypothetically if cotch keeps no 9, then what becomes of no 17? does it sit and wait for our next big thing? or is there anyone who could don the jumper now?

Personally i'd prefer cotch to wear no 9, but if that happens it leaves the question what becomes of 17 and tbh I dont know what i'd do if I was in charge, its a hrad call to make... 

[WilliamPowell]

I have Leon Cameron's guernsey from that day = his last AFL game, with the 17 on it 

Can I have it?

No! 

The '17' idea was an emotional knee-jerk reaction.
Jack Dyer's memory will be rightly well preserved at Tigerland through many channels  but it's time this gimmick was put out to pasture.

I think what's got lost is the fact that the decision of having the captain wear number 17 has a bit more to do with it than it simply being a memorial to Jack Dyer

A little No.17 on the front, no thanks. The club needs to get rid of the idea altogether. It is not a 'tradition' of the club, it was only a recent idea and it was bad.
Trent Cotchin is too good to be living in anyone's shadow.

This number 17 things has been in place now 9 seasons, so yes in terms of how long we've had it is relatively new but to have and create a tradition one needs to start it. that's what they did

I would think you can make a case that every player who wears a significant number at any club lives in the shadow of all previous players who wore that number until they create their own career, history and eventually legacy

The '17' idea was an emotional knee-jerk reaction.
Jack Dyer's memory will be rightly well preserved at Tigerland through many channels  but it's time this gimmick was put out to pasture.

Cotchin will carve out his own piece of Richmond history and make the number 9 revered.

Maybe but why does it becomes the players decision? 

Yep and that's what a group of us were discussing yesterday.

the other thing that I find interesteing is that no one was up in arms when Cambo was given the number 17 (he was the first), no one was mortified that Kane Johnson had to move to 17 and give up number 28 for 4 years. No one jumped up[ and down when Newy had to put number 1 in mothbalss for the last 4 years.

But now it's Cotch it's front page news. The difference? apart from Cotchin being a much better player?

I grew up when the clubs best palyer was usually given number 17 (Rioli, Broderick) until Paul Hudson came along. If that was concept was still in play right now then I reckon most people would say Cotchin should have been given & be wearing number 17. It's kind of ironic 

Said it before will say it again it's an interesting debate