New Richmond coach will get a 3-year contract (Australian)

[one-eyed]

The Tigers will offer a maximum three-year contract to the new coach, two years less than Terry Wallace was given when he was appointed at the end of 2004.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25925629-2722,00.html

Are you happy with the new coach getting a 3-year contract?

[Ramps]

I would have thought 2 years would have been better. 1st stage should be to get rid of the crap on the list, start bringing in more kids and developing a new culture aimed at getting success. Hopefully real evidence of improvement could be seen sometime in year 2, if so then the new coach could then get a further 2 or 3 years.

[WilliamPowell]

I would go 2 years with an option of a 3rd

[richmondrules]

The article does say maximum so it implies that this is the absolute most we will offer, not that we will definitely offer it.

I'm with WP. 2 years with an option on a 3rd based on performance. If the coach is doing well after 2 then you would probably see a new contract negotiated then anyway.

[Jackstar is back]

Surely it would have to be 2 years, havent they got any idea down there

[Infamy]

Missleading thread title

[tigersalive]

I don't see the problem with a 3 year contract.  Coaches are going to want that long to get poo in order, especially the way some of our player think making an effort is, to turn their ethics around.  Whether you like it or not, it takes time to change these things, and 3 years is the standard maximum contract for rookie coaches.  Make it performance based for the 3rd year and they have something to aim for.

[FooffooValve]

It might mean the difference between getting the bloke you want and the bloke with his hand up. Big difference. 3 years is fine.

[the_boy_jake]

3 years is right. Would Clarkson have got a third year after going 14, 11? You can't really set reasonable quantifiable targets for a coach who is rebuilding the list and demanding his own style over two years IMHO.

[Tigermonk]

2 year contract based on win/loss & progress of skills with no options of 3rd year.
Time to get TUFF Richmond.

[Gracie]

A two year contract would not give us as much room to sack the coach in his last year as three year contract would.

[Tigermonk]

A two year contract would not give us as much room to sack the coach in his last year as three year contract would.

we might wanna sack him after the first year if his anything like Wallet or Rawlings game styles

[tigersalive]

A two year contract would not give us as much room to sack the coach in his last year as three year contract would.

we might wanna sack him after the first year if his anything like Wallet or Rawlings game styles

Well then he's destined to fail in your eyes because very few coaches have turned a perceived poor teams game plan around and into their own wishes in one off-season, as players have habits, and it takes time to break them. 

Classic examples: Mark Thompson and Ross Lyon.

[the_boy_jake]

Well then he's destined to fail in your eyes because very few coaches have turned a perceived poor teams game plan around and into their own wishes in one off-season, as players have habits, and it takes time to break them. 

Classic examples: Mark Thompson and Ross Lyon.

Ross Lyon would have done enough in two years to get a contract extension, but is still a good example in that it took him two years to get the team playing his style with a good senior core to build around (who is our N Riewoldt, Ball, Hayes, Dal Santo, Kosi etc etc etc).

[camboon]

No Problem with three years, you cant send a signal of no confidence before the coach even starts - surely!!