Terry's Next Contract

[Infamy]

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.

So if our juniors can't have an impact as quick as Cotchin then they need to be thrown out of the club?
I'd accuse you of smoking crack, but I doubt you can afford it

[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.

So if our juniors can't have an impact as quick as Cotchin then they need to be thrown out of the club?
I'd accuse you of smoking crack, but I doubt you can afford it

Tambling, should be traded at end of year .
Patto, struggling.
Graham ?
Casserlry ?
Edwards ?
Connors ?
JON. GONE!
Polo ?
Hughes( would hope he can go on with it now, been there for 3 years for 12 games )


You need to keep turning over players quickly, not holding onto and living in hope as we have previous done.
Example. Schulz , Pettifer. Hyde, Jackson ( should of gone 2 years ago with Tom Roach)

[tiga]

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.

Well, just like Fish, I too am waiting for some sort of evidence to back up your claims. You are being very "Canberra" like 1980 with the way you are expertly avoiding the question by responding with rhetorical questions in return.   I guess the burden of proof is too much for some.  I hear the real proof may be hidden at Roswell along side the Holy Grail and Jimmy Hoffa. We need to bring back the old "Great mysteries of the world" hosted by Leonard Nimoy if we are to find out the real truth.  

[1980]

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.

LMAO

Could you possibly be more anal?

Terry Wallace should not be criticised because no-one can prove he was on twice the money Clarkson was on when he was appointed.

Well done to FF.

Now, how about you answer the point of the thread, because it would not matter what Wallace makes if we were a finals side this year.

Did you in 2004 expect the Hawks under Clarkson to be a top 4 side, and Richmond under Wallace not playing in a finals series into his 4th year? Since you cant post without facts, lets have that post you made from 2004 that said it

   

[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.

Well, just like Fish, I too am waiting for some sort of evidence to back up your claims. You are being very "Canberra" like 1980 with the way you are expertly avoiding the question by responding with rhetorical questions in return.   I guess the burden of proof is too much for some.  I hear the real proof may be hidden at Roswell along side the Holy Grail and Jimmy Hoffa. We need to bring back the old "Great mysteries of the world" hosted by Leonard Nimoy if we are to find out the real truth.  

So what do you reckon those coaches were on when they wereappointed in 2004?

You've got my opinion.

How about yours?

[tiga]

Two new posts but the song remains the same....How about this for a refreshing idea..."I don't know how much they were all paid, I just wanted to throw an unsubstaitiated comment with no eveidence to support my claim in an attempt to show my disgust in the coaching ability of one Terry Wallace" or at least say..."You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth!!" At least it would have been entertaining.

Like Fish, I have no idea what they were all paid. I'm waiting for you to educate me oh masterful one... Wax on...Wax off 

[cub]

Itsh rike a circle

[tiga]

ROFLMAOOOOOOOO@CUBSTER 

[1980]

Two new posts but the song remains the same....How about this for a refreshing idea..."I don't know how much they were all paid, I just wanted to throw an unsubstaitiated comment with no eveidence to support my claim in an attempt to show my disgust in the coaching ability of one Terry Wallace" or at least say..."You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth!!" At least it would have been entertaining.

Like Fish, I have no idea what they were all paid. I'm waiting for you to educate me oh masterful one... Wax on...Wax off 

So you think I'm wrong but you dont have the answer either? LMAO

How about just an opinion? Humor me.

One was in a middle of a bidding war between Hawthorn and Richmond, another one had left Sydney with a somewhat less than perfect reputation and accepted the first offer put in front of him, and the final one had not coached at senior level before, was a surprise appointment and came out of left field.

Which of the three do you think was the highest paid? Which was the lowest paid?

Is it that difficult for you to have an opinion?

[Infamy]

You need to keep turning over players quickly, not holding onto and living in hope as we have previous done.
Example. Schulz , Pettifer. Hyde, Jackson ( should of gone 2 years ago with Tom Roach)

We've had to clean out the senior players first, you can't delist both the old bastards and the kids who you think aren't up to it or you'll be left with no one to play on the weekend.
Once we have got rid of the rest of the dead wood then we can start focussing on cleaning up the kids who haven't come on.
If you do it all in one go you end up just filling your list with 7th-8th+ round draft picks and then you're back to square one complaining about kids who haven't shown anything in 2 years.
Half the old blokes will/should go at the end of the year, then the rest most likely the year after that, there will be a few youngsters who are clearcut decisions to go who'll also get cut along the way, but not the maybes.

It's not rocket science.

[tiga]

Two new posts but the song remains the same....How about this for a refreshing idea..."I don't know how much they were all paid, I just wanted to throw an unsubstaitiated comment with no eveidence to support my claim in an attempt to show my disgust in the coaching ability of one Terry Wallace" or at least say..."You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth!!" At least it would have been entertaining.

Like Fish, I have no idea what they were all paid. I'm waiting for you to educate me oh masterful one... Wax on...Wax off 

So you think I'm wrong but you dont have the answer either? LMAO

How about just an opinion? Humor me.

One was in a middle of a bidding war between Hawthorn and Richmond, another one had left Sydney with a somewhat less than perfect reputation and accepted the first offer put in front of him, and the final one had not coached at senior level before, was a surprise appointment and came out of left field.

Which of the three do you think was the highest paid? Which was the lowest paid?

Is it that difficult for you to have an opinion?

I don't know 1980 if you are right or wrong as I have no idea what they were paid. So you want me to humour you??...Well I can post a whole heap of baseless drivel if that will make you happy but it won't bring anything to the table as far as this debate is concerned. I guess we are both in the same boat after all eh?? You paddle for dry land while I try and pitch out the water before we both sink...gurgle gurgle gurgle. 

Oh Sorry... Baseless drivel now following

Terry wallace was on 1 million a season based on performance and reviewed annually, Clarkson was on 100K a season reviewed annually based on performance. Now Wallace is on 100K a season and Clarkson is on 1 million a season. How does that sound??  Now that people realise Wallace is only on 100K a season, we should give him a break!

How was that 1980?? That's enough conjecture for me for one day thats for sure. If you don't know the real answer then maybe you should seek your answer in Shangri-La from the Grand Master Jackstar where you will be skilled in the art of "Groundhog day" 

[Ramps]

Itsh rike a circle

cub wins post of the month for july hands down, this month is a no contest.

[dereel-tiger]

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.

So if our juniors can't have an impact as quick as Cotchin then they need to be thrown out of the club?
I'd accuse you of smoking crack, but I doubt you can afford it
[/quote]

Tambling, should be traded at end of year .
Patto, struggling.
Graham ?
Casserlry ?


Edwards ?
Connors ?
JON. GONE!
Polo ?
Hughes( would hope he can go on with it now, been there for 3 years for 12 games )


You need to keep turning over players quickly, not holding onto and living in hope as we have previous done.
Example. Schulz , Pettifer. Hyde, Jackson ( should of gone 2 years ago with Tom Roach)
[/quote]

do you really know what your talking about
some players need a few years to be consistent.
its not cut and dry playing afl,you dont just walk in and be a regular player.
cotchin has done really well so far ,but he will get tagged and his preformance will be up and down until he learns the game properly.
tambling is still only young ,he has showed a bit at times to suggest he should be kept on the list ,at least until next year if he doesnt get his consistency right by then, well then trade him.

[Fishfinger]

Tambling can only be traded at the end of next year if he agrees to it.
He has a contract to the end of 2010.

[Tigermonk]

people wanting Tambling traded get serious, this young bloke is still learning & has lots to offer Richmond in the next few seasons, his got huge talent & takes a good player every week. be easy on him  he maybe just another Cooney in a few seasons