Bring on the changes.

[Rosy]

I am sure the club said earlier we couldn't fill our list due to salary cap restrictions. Recently we were told the list wasn't filled due to lack of suitable players to give a spot to. Have I imagined these things differing statements? Which was correct?

Last year Danny promised a clean out and big changes at the end of the season. They didn't exactly eventuate.
I realise there were players kept on due to being contracted but in reality noone paid the price for our crap performance. They performed the same again this year.

At a guess I'd say about 6 of those players kept due to contracts will go this year and make way for draft picks.

How many picks can we have?

I can't see us trading more than a couple of "name" players.

A fair proportion of our team hasn't performed to expectation the last two seasons. We've been told those players will go.

We know who a lot of the underperforming players have been. It will be interesting to see what happens to them.

I can't see how a cleanout can happen (lucky I am not football manager, ha.)

I do know there will be a lot of faith lost and angry supporters if we have been lied to again and the players who've let us down stay on.

All will be revealed in a couple of months I suppose but I can see a situation where we don't have a lot of change in our top 22.

Maybe a couple go for a couple more suited to our needs, but that seems like a bandaid fix to me if we don't get rid of underperformers.

I'm looking forward to seeing what a genius Greg Miller can be but I'll be very disappointed if our list next year even resembles the list that's let us down the last two years.

 

[Harry]

The RFC are placed in a hard position ATM. They have come out hard and stated that the list is no good and that big changes are going to be made. In alot of peoples minds they are committing to a period of rebuilding - because you just can't go through band aid recruiting forever when the team is not performing.

Now this is where it gets tricky. If they have committed to rebuilding then surely they must commit to the coach for at least 3-4 years. Do they commit to Frawely for 4 more years? Or do they committ to someone else? As much as I think Frawely cannot coach, it will be unfair on him for RFC to back him now and then knife him when the new, young players don't deliver next year. Don't expect a finals birth next year if we are rebuilding.

However if they committ to him for another 4 years, we will, as Laff says, have the worst performed 8 year coach in history.

 

[Laff]

Miller has not only been looking at young talent my mail tells me he has the committment of at least one out of contract player

 

[Tigerdog]

Who Laff?

Probably Camporeale :'( or some other outside on-baller to replace Bowden....

I should have more faith in Miller.

Go Greg!

 

[spiritofrichmond]

The RFC are placed in a hard position ATM. They have come out hard and stated that the list is no good and that big changes are going to be made.

Our football department are the ones responsible for our rubbish list. They are the ones who in their wisdom decided that these players will take us to the promised land.
It is exactly why the same people should be made accountable for their stupidity and be replaced with others who know what the meaning of being successful is.

 

[Koalalill]

This from this mornings Age

Tigers keep an eye on the traffic
By Mark Fuller
August 14 2003


Richmond will look to sell as many as 10 players if the end-of-season market place offers suitable replacements.

Tigers football manager Greg Hutchison yesterday said available talent would determine the size of the club's purge after a disappointing 2003, but he indicated the club might turn over between eight and 10 players.

"We haven't quite been able to identify what sort of talent is available," Hutchison said.

"We've got a fair idea, but if you make eight to 10 changes on your list, it's fairly dramatic, and you have to replace them with people in the pool of talent.

"Whether that pool of talent is strong enough to replace all those players . . . we haven't made that assessment just yet."


He said the club had not yet decided "who's going to retire or who's going to finish up at the end of the year" but he believed players fighting for their careers were aware of where they stood.

"I think that over the past five to six weeks there would be players who would be aware that they need to perform fairly well to give themselves the best possible chance of having an AFL career anywhere," he said.

Hutchison was clear about Richmond's areas of need.

"We've got to try to find another couple of midfielders that will help out particularly Kane Johnson and Mark Coughlan and Wayne Campbell when he comes back," he said.

"Key midfielders are pretty hard to find, but I'm certain we'll be having a look at those."

He said Darren Gaspar's absence through injury had exposed the Tigers' shortage of quality back men.

"Another key defender would help us as well. We've certainly been exposed a little bit since Gassie's gone down injured, and you just never know what happens when those key defenders go down," he said. "They're also very hard to find."

Hutchison said it was important that the Tigers were competitive in their remaining three games - beginning with Sunday's match against Essendon at the MCG - to ensure they went into next year's pre-season with hope.


This story was found at: http://realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/13/1060588458997.html

 

[Koalalill]

Who Laff?

Probably Camporeale :'( or some other outside on-baller to replace Bowden....

I should have more faith in Miller.

Go Greg!

Camporeale is contracted next season

 

[Koalalill]

I am sure the club said earlier we couldn't fill our list due to salary cap restrictions. Recently we were told the list wasn't filled due to lack of suitable players to give a spot to. Have I imagined these things differing statements? Which was correct?

I am not sure if the Club siad they couldn't fill the list because of the cap. I know the media kept harping on about us being at the limit and under investigation.

What I can say was that at the Members Info night - they were very clear in saying that they were paying 97% of the cap this season - which was the figure set by the board and that and the fact the talent was not there in last years draft were the reason we went short on the list. MAybe when they talk about being at the limit - they were talking about being right at 97% - who knows.

What has been proven this season, no doubt, is the fact that going short on the list has hurt us

 

[Rosy]

I am not sure if the Club siad they couldn't fill the list because of the cap. I know the media kept harping on about us being at the limit and under investigation.

I am sure I read that earlier on this year, if not if was definitely discussed on club corner as the reason we couldn't elevate a rookie last year. Was Kristian De Pasquale on our rookie list?

Whoever it was if not Kristian was outstanding every week for Coburg and they said he really earned a spot on the list but we couldn't afford him under our salary cap.

 

[Laff]

They will have plenty of room in the salary cap next year

 

[RFC not KFC]

They'll need a street sweeper not a broom.

 

[Koalalill]

They will have plenty of room in the salary cap next year

Certainly will Laff.

Finally :

 

[Rosy]

Richmond will look to sell as many as 10 players if the end-of-season market place offers suitable replacements.

That's what I don't understand.

Surely Kingy, Bidders etc aren't sellable? I can see players just being delisted. We are already a couple short, so with delistings could be anywhere up to 6 or more short. Isn't the only way to fill vacant spots by drafting them?

Who do people see as the most likely players to be under contention for banishment.

Off the top of my head I'd have-

Kingy......Delist
Bidders..Delist

Not sure what we'd get for the following could well be nothing

Rogo..Contracted but I'm sure they'd consider trade
Houla
Rory
Hyde....No good keeping him if he can't get a game
Mills......Ditto
Vardy.....Ditto
Pettifer....Wishful thinking? Probably star now

Maybe Joel and Aaron would be high candidates for trading.
I guess there could well be a surprise or two a la Torney.

I still can't see 10 sellable players. I don't really count too many of the ones kept this season because of contracts.

Does anyone know the maximum number of draft picks we can have?

Anyway I am probably seeing this wrong somehow and they will deliver on the promises for once.

 

[Dean3]

Hutchy is only quoted as saying that we'll turnover 8-10 players. That's different to 'selling' - that word was used erroneously by the reporter. With your list Rosy, it is quite easy to envisage 8-10 changes. And you didn't mention Duncan once! ;D

 

[Harry]

They will only delist approx. 8 fringe players and probably trade 1-2 regular players........ next year our core group will be the same players that lost 8 straight and led by the same coach........expect no improvement next year as the coach can't get the most out of these players that are not as bad as people think.....they just can't play frawely's way....... I doubt if any players in the league could.

 

[Tigerdog]

Rosy you can draft as many players as you want but the list size must not exceed I think next year it will be 44(?) including veterans and rookies. Am prepared to stand corrected on the figure but I think the principle is right.
Also for next year the AFL has introduced a minimum list size which is 38(?) I think. So theoritically you can draft as many as you can afford up to 44. But as we have seen in other years, for varying reasons many clubs pass on their last few draft picks and go a few short on their list.
If the above rule was in this year we would have been forced to draft 2 more players, without having a choice in the matter.

 

[Dean3]

Bit of a straw man argument there Harry. If we have up to 10 new players on our list, most of them young kids, then nobody should be expecting miracles next year, no matter who is coaching them. Hard for you to be wrong about that - and Danny can't win, which is your intention, isn't it?
And I don't think you can blame 8 straight losses on the core group. It's the bottom 8 or 10 on our list that have caused the problems...I think everbody is in agreement about that, aren't they? Or if they're not as bad as people think, should we be holding on to them Harry?

 

[Rosy]

I don't quite agree Deano. I agree players 26-36 haven't done a lot to help out, and our lack of depth has been obvious.

But it's the 24 or so who've been playing who I am more concerned about. The ones selected each week and not performed.

We can easily get new blood by swapping the dregs who are past it, but to me it's not addressing the players who are up to it and just haven't put in.

(Thanks for the pick info Td. I thought there might have beena limit of 5 picks or something in the draft. We usually pass earlier so I've never hung around to see how long teams go on choosing.)

 

[Harry]

Dean - So we should give Frawely a 4 year plan to rebuild the list then. Its one way or the other........you can't say we will tear apart the list and then say Frawely has one more year to run......which way is it...........members need a clear plan from the club.....memebers need to know that the club knows what its doing....it appears they don't.

Its quite convenient for the club and the coach to say that the list is no good now, the same list that they overrated and were confident that it will deliver.......it just goes further to show their incompetence.

I stick to my comment about our core group.........it is quite good but frawely can't utilise their talents and have them play as a cohesive unit. A good coach would. We've only had 2 major injuries during our losing streak.........so you can't blame depth of list as an excuse.

 

[Dean3]

But that's the whole problem isn't it rosy? Injuries have forced us to play blokes that clearly aren't up to it. The very blokes that we want to delist are the ones that have been pulling on the jumper and not performing each week - or am I missing something? Three or four non-performers each week can very quickly make the other 18 look very ordinary indeed.

As far as core group, I took that to mean, say our top 8 or 10 players - I think most of them can hold their heads high, give or take a couple ;D