Football > Richmond Rant

How long a contract should the new coach get?

(1/1)

mightytiges:
As IMHO we need to rebuild our list I'd reckon our new coach needs at least 3 years with an option of a fourth. If it's too short he may be tempted to think short term to save himself while if it's too long (say 5 years) we could get caught out $$$ wise if for some reason it doesn't work out to well. Bloody hope it does work out well mind you!

Thoughts? 

Ox:
3

JohnF:
Whatever the length of the contract, the main priority must be setting us up of for a successful prolonged period at the top. Getting immediate success shouldn't be the aim or instruction for the new coach if he wishes to stay coach. 3 years seems fair.

Tiger Spirit:
I think it depends on whether it’s a rookie coach or experienced coach?

I would settle for 2 years for a rookie coach, because, for one thing, we won’t know, with any certainty, if he can handle the caper and how well he will go.  So we shouldn’t tie ourselves, for financial reasons, to someone who may not work out.

I agree that a minimum of 3 years is needed, but leave that for a Wallace or Eade.  I think it’s better to be cautious with any untried Coach and then once it looks like he’s the way to go, by all means extend his contract.

Because, we can do all the homework we like, but until you see someone under the pressure, etc. then you can’t be certain of anything.  And I don’t see the harm in going for 2 years, initially, with a rookie coach.

Puntroadroar:
ideally 3 years

but as long as the new coach doesnt come out and say to be playing finals in 3 years, we all know the truth, ill give the coach 3 years to give the list a thorough clean out and to make some steady performances on the field, not resultant on our win loss in the 3rd year but how the team performs in tough matches.

Navigation

[0] Message Index