Terry's Next Contract

[Fishfinger]

Its hardly rocket science mate. Wallace is paid in the top bracket of coaches, and Clarkson was paid as a first time/first year coach. That's $500-600 VS $200-300.

Also not sure about your claim the Dogs had more money to spend either. From memory, we cut our player payments from 99% of the salary cap to fund Wallace's coaching contract 

Richmond had the cheapest coaching panel in 2005. Also, didn't have a full-time recruiting manager.

If you reckon it's hardly rocket science then how did you come up with Wallace getting twice as much as Eade? Not "facts", speculation and opinion without proof.

[jackstar]

Its hardly rocket science mate. Wallace is paid in the top bracket of coaches, and Clarkson was paid as a first time/first year coach. That's $500-600 VS $200-300.

Also not sure about your claim the Dogs had more money to spend either. From memory, we cut our player payments from 99% of the salary cap to fund Wallace's coaching contract 

Richmond had the cheapest coaching panel in 2005. Also, didn't have a full-time recruiting manager.

If you reckon it's hardly rocket science then how did you come up with Wallace getting twice as much as Eade? Not "facts", speculation and opinion without proof.

Can tell you that Terry demanded his conditions and he got them accordingly.
In the vicinty of $600,000 PLUS bonuses for finals
I reckon wooden spoons should count as a 50% reduction for 2 years

[jackstar]

This site is getting laughable.
I know Connors had an interupted pre-season.
Cotchin didnt even have one and look where he is .
I rest my case.
Anyway, you disgree with everything I say.
Thats why we are playing Finals football this year.
Your right WP Always!

If you don't like the site bugger off (again)

I might actually eff off, you clowns are starting to do my head in with your Terry Wallace love in website

[1965]

This site is getting laughable.
I know Connors had an interupted pre-season.
Cotchin didnt even have one and look where he is .
I rest my case.
Anyway, you disgree with everything I say.
Thats why we are playing Finals football this year.
Your right WP Always!

If you don't like the site bugger off (again)

I might actually eff off, you clowns are starting to do my head in with your Terry Wallace love in website

FFS don't talk about it, just do it.

and take Daniel with you. (at least you have some credibility)

 

[Francois Jackson]

This site is getting laughable.
I know Connors had an interupted pre-season.
Cotchin didnt even have one and look where he is .
I rest my case.
Anyway, you disgree with everything I say.
Thats why we are playing Finals football this year.
Your right WP Always!

If you don't like the site bugger off (again)

I might actually eff off, you clowns are starting to do my head in with your Terry Wallace love in website

FFS don't talk about it, just do it.

and take Daniel with you. (at least you have some credibility)

 

MCMLXV i feel sorry for you i really do.  Actually i feel sorry for your family having to live with such a loser...

[1965]

MCMLXV i feel sorry for you i really do.  Actually i feel sorry for your family having to live with such a loser...

 

[jackstar]

 

[Fwoy3]

So Jack tell me, Do you think our list is better or worse than when we sacked Frawley?? If you can't see what Terry has done so far then you really are looking at the RFC through Mud encrusted glasses. I for one can see real potential in our list.
When we made finals with spud IMO our list was already in need of a makeover as we were just winning games ugly and our scoring average was lucky to get above 90. Look at Frawleys recruiting model compared to Wallace's. Frawley's had no sustainability whereas Wallace is proving his will be long term and overall far more beneficial to the clubs future success with or without him. Look at how many recycled's Frawley recruitied compared to Wallace (not including rookies).
Frawley
Biddiscombe, Houlihan, King, Flemming, Nicholls(sorry WP), Hudson, Hilton, Sziller, Johnson, Stafford, Marsh, Brown, Fletcher, Blumfield, Morrison, Weller.
Wallace
Kingsley, Graham, Humm, Knobel, Simmonds, Polak, P.Bowden, M.Morton, McMahon.

I may have missed a couple but for arguments sake you can see the difference and I know which one I prefer. C'mon Jack, you have to give credit where credits due for a change.

At the moment, worse. I dont beleive the younger guys we have recuited as a GROUP are going to impact as good as many people think( exclude( Lids, Cotchin,Morton Foley Thursfield). There has been more mistakes with recuiting in the past 4 years than there has been for  a while.  Tambling/JON/ McMahon, throw in wasted pics in Graham/Kingsley i could go on and on. Have a look at the guys at Coburg who have been on our list for a few years Eg Meyer, Connors etc  There are too many small players recruited.

By the way, if you bag Sziller and C.King, you know little about football. They were 2 major reasons we played finals in 2001, both had good years, go and get a video and have a look.
Weller and Morrison, well that was Greg Millers influence, he has little idea but there are some here who reckon he is a genius, hammerheads maybe

But you don't Jack! Some of us might even agree with you on certain points, but why must we read the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over?

WE KNOW...
...Wallace can't coach ( )
...You don't like JON, Tambling McMahon (!!!!!!! !!!)
...we ""apparently"" wasted first round National Draft picks on Kingsley and Graham
...We - as a collective - don't get it ( )
WE F'N KNOW!!!!

Now please, Shut the F*** up or change the record.

[1980]

Its hardly rocket science mate. Wallace is paid in the top bracket of coaches, and Clarkson was paid as a first time/first year coach. That's $500-600 VS $200-300.

Also not sure about your claim the Dogs had more money to spend either. From memory, we cut our player payments from 99% of the salary cap to fund Wallace's coaching contract 

Richmond had the cheapest coaching panel in 2005. Also, didn't have a full-time recruiting manager.

If you reckon it's hardly rocket science then how did you come up with Wallace getting twice as much as Eade? Not "facts", speculation and opinion without proof.

Ok, so what exactly are you arguing?

That Wallace is not paid more than Eade or Clarkson?

That he is a great coach but we didnt pay him enough to incentivise him to make us a top 4 footy team?

That if we paid him more he'd work harder and get us in the 8 this year?

LMFAO

We did have a full time recruiting manager- Greg Miller. Nothing to do with budget either. Just politics. Miller wanted to do all the recruitment himself when he was on his "I'm the next Graeme Richmond" dream

Its a very simple fact. TW was appointed as one of the highest paid coaches in the AFL. I'm not sure how many 5 year deals were going around then either. Expectations were that we'd be a finals team in his 4th year, and we're not. On the other hand, Clarkson and Eade will fight it out for a GF spot against the Cats. And you may be the only guy in Australia that thinks either of them get paid more than wallace.

[jackstar]

So Jack tell me, Do you think our list is better or worse than when we sacked Frawley?? If you can't see what Terry has done so far then you really are looking at the RFC through Mud encrusted glasses. I for one can see real potential in our list.
When we made finals with spud IMO our list was already in need of a makeover as we were just winning games ugly and our scoring average was lucky to get above 90. Look at Frawleys recruiting model compared to Wallace's. Frawley's had no sustainability whereas Wallace is proving his will be long term and overall far more beneficial to the clubs future success with or without him. Look at how many recycled's Frawley recruitied compared to Wallace (not including rookies).
Frawley
Biddiscombe, Houlihan, King, Flemming, Nicholls(sorry WP), Hudson, Hilton, Sziller, Johnson, Stafford, Marsh, Brown, Fletcher, Blumfield, Morrison, Weller.
Wallace
Kingsley, Graham, Humm, Knobel, Simmonds, Polak, P.Bowden, M.Morton, McMahon.

I may have missed a couple but for arguments sake you can see the difference and I know which one I prefer. C'mon Jack, you have to give credit where credits due for a change.

At the moment, worse. I dont beleive the younger guys we have recuited as a GROUP are going to impact as good as many people think( exclude( Lids, Cotchin,Morton Foley Thursfield). There has been more mistakes with recuiting in the past 4 years than there has been for  a while.  Tambling/JON/ McMahon, throw in wasted pics in Graham/Kingsley i could go on and on. Have a look at the guys at Coburg who have been on our list for a few years Eg Meyer, Connors etc  There are too many small players recruited.

By the way, if you bag Sziller and C.King, you know little about football. They were 2 major reasons we played finals in 2001, both had good years, go and get a video and have a look.
Weller and Morrison, well that was Greg Millers influence, he has little idea but there are some here who reckon he is a genius, hammerheads maybe

But you don't Jack! Some of us might even agree with you on certain points, but why must we read the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over?

WE KNOW...
...Wallace can't coach ( )
...You don't like JON, Tambling McMahon (!!!!!!! !!!)
...we ""apparently"" wasted first round National Draft picks on Kingsley and Graham
...We - as a collective - don't get it ( )
WE F'N KNOW!!!!

Now please, Shut the F*** up or change the record.

You obviously agree with me

[Fwoy3]

LOL

[jackstar]

LOL

We will have a beer soon.

[Fwoy3]

LOL

We will have a beer soon.

Only if you don't talk about Wallace 

[jackstar]

LOL

We will have a beer soon.

Only if you don't talk about Wallace 

Promise I wont, he wont be around by then, lol

[Fishfinger]

Ok, so what exactly are you arguing?

That Wallace is not paid more than Eade or Clarkson?

No. I've never said that, nor the other crap you've tried to pin on me .
I'm arguing that what you used as "facts" to back up your argument are not facts.
Specifically this -

Facts are that we pay Wallace twice what Clarkson (or eade for that matter get),...

I've agreed that Wallace would have been on much more than Clarkson to begin with. Without knowing, I think twice would probably be around the mark. Not now, though. Not ever twice as much as Eade.

As I said in my original reply, if you have proof that we pay Wallace twice what Clarkson or Eade get then cough it up. If you haven't then you can't claim it as facts which back you up.