Because we also have to pay out McMahon and King. Another 2 who should not be there next year. I cant see the club paying out all 3 and throwing them on the scrap heap.WesternTiger said:
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
3AW's suggested Tiger delistings
- Thread starter Tenacious
- Start date
Smoking Aces said:
Would keep King over Sarge. Out of the three McMuffin is the one we will have the most chance of getting a trade.
Hell I would even keep McMuffin over Sarge.
In the current environment you simply can't get rid of 10 players and replace them all, possibly if you upgraded ALL of your rookies, but do you really want Silvester, Gourdis and Gilligan as listed players? The cold reality is some of the players that aren't up to it will have to be kept for another year because the club can't then get enough people to put a team on the park. It'll be hard enough if they delist 8. The RFC is now paying a high price for Wallace's refusal to make unpopular decisions and cut deeper into the list.WesternTiger said:
CarnTheTiges said:
Promote Nahas and maybe Browne. That levels 7 or 8 picks in the ND (you would hope one or two are upgrades through trades) and one in the PSD.
Its not hard.
Gone - Johnson, Petts, Bowden, Brown, JON, Simmo, Hughes, Sarge and trade one or more of McMuffin, King, Tuck, Patto.
And I am sure I have missed a couple.
Hell it has been reported the club is actually considering a cut of this magnitude. Lets see them do it.
So you're going to pay out Schulz's contract? I don't want these blokes hanging around either, but I can't see how they can do it and still get a team on the park. It can't be done all at once. It needs to be a gradual process. Roughly 8 a year for the next 3 years. Highly likely that 3 will already go at the end of next season and that's the 3 that have a contract. Possibly add a retirement: Richo or Cousins to that and there's 4, you can easily get another 4 from that. One major mistake that was made during the Wallace years was having a big clean out in his first year and then doing as little as possible from then on. Players have to be cleaned out and turned over in large numbers until the club gets the mix they want that they think can take them forward. In the current environment of compromised drafts it's going to be at least 3 years before a club like Richmond can even mention the word rebuild and actually mean it.WesternTiger said:
McMahon is on about $300,000 and Schulz isn't doing it for love of the game, don't know what King is on, but he'd probably be less. Cousins salary will double next season and if you offer some of the promising kids less they'll go to a cashed up GC and West Sydney. The club is stuck with those 3 and whoever signed them up should be given a bloody good kicking and their marching orders from the club.Baloo said:
Totally agree. Mcmuffin is a v.good chance of going to St Kilda, so we only have to cut Schulz and King. Worst case i would keep King for one more year but would chop Schulz in a heartbeat!!Baloo said:
I'd rather have a pick 98 KPP as backup in the ressies than Schulz or Hughes. Duds of the highest order and the exact reason why this club is where it is at. Fancy giving these muppets more than a 1 year contract. This club is a laughing stock at the moment.
Next 2 years are crtitical in the make of the RFC. If we play it smart and over the next 2 years cull 11+ players each year, we may just be able to turn it around. That would be close to 20 players moving on over 2 years. The only way we can finally rid ourselves of the garbage that are calling themselves Richmond Football Players.
If anyone offer Brown another year i will spew up!!!!!!!!!! Lets hope Richo sees the writing on the wall and puts his selfish attitude to the side and does the right thing by the RFC and not himself. What could we possibly achieve by giving Richo another year!! We just lose another spot on our list for a potential youngster.
CarnTheTiges said:
What do you mean do it and get a team on the park?
Who of Johnson, Petts, Bowden, Brown, JON, Simmo, Hughes, Sarge, McMuffin, King, Tuck, Patto have made a meaningful contribution in 2009?
We can certainly afford to cut ten at the end of 2009 and then delist and draft min 6 kids in 2010 and 2011 as well.
Would you be disappointed if the club did what has been reported and they cut 10 or 12 players at the end of 2009?
If anything yesterday showed why Richo should get another year.We simply have no one to replace him.BTW can,t see why would you call him selfish.He,s maintained over the past month he will accept whatever the club/coach decide.frawleyudud said:
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
That's the problem isn't it? People still calling for him to be the saviour after all these years, there's something wrong with that. That screams to me, move him and on and starting developing other options, create a new era. He's got 1 more year left max, so why drag it out? Let's move on.
People always use the Hawks as an example for cutting their senior players ruthlessly, however they still kept Shane Crawford on even during their rebuild. He would have been allowed to play on again this year too had he not pulled the pin. Can't see why Richo shouldn't be treated differently.
The problem is that 15 or so need to go.The real problem is that after promoting a rookie or 2, that if we topped up with 13 or 14 in the draft the reality is that not even halfwill turn out to be footballers & even if they do wont be ready next yr.Christ we are in for plenty more pain
sheesh its not only ferals overrating the list but jurnos as well. just 17 are they blind. you could do another 11 and not blink an eye.
minimum of 9 this yr. 9 next yr. and maybe nine the yr after. on top of that the following yr 2012 there may be another decent turnover getting rid of the picks we get wrong.
minimum of 9 this yr. 9 next yr. and maybe nine the yr after. on top of that the following yr 2012 there may be another decent turnover getting rid of the picks we get wrong.
