I believe that Caro's statement is probably true, but still, a very brave assumption to make, even though she uses the word "thinks" which gives her an out.
Here are the facts (as i see them, others may have more data)
1. Richmond created a reputation in the past of burning its coaches.
2. Richmond has lost the opportunity in the past to hire the particular coaches that it desired because of the reputation it created in point 1.
3. The club recognizing the reputation it itself had created and the negative impact that it was creating on the club through the eyes of the administrative world, decided on a course of action that would revert and cause to change the public and administrative reputation of how it handles its coaches.
4. The decision was made to honor the contracts that the club entered into with its coaches.
5. The richmond football club stuck to its guns in the implementation of this new policy, witness Danny Frawley and by actually doing so did in fact gain some renewed credibility both publically and administratively.
6. The world of football administration (AFL, club level) in most cases will have a different reality on a scene than what its supporters (the mob) will have.
7. As much as supporters probably hate to admit it "the mob" is generally 90% wrong in most cases.
Taking into consideration the above points it's fair to say that, on the balance of all probability Wallace's position is safe for the duration of his contract. However, I might add that there is a point where following along a certain line of think can become more destructive than constructive. There is a time and a place for pretty much all types of decisions one can't blind themselves to ALL probable options because of the percieved and real mistakes of the past.
Richmond's position in respect to its contractural arrangements is admirable but it must realise it is a two way street and that the other side of the contract has a responsibility too.
Dont chain yourself into a line of think that you can't escape from.
