Get off your high horse Caro!

[josey]

The worst part about that, is that it shouldn't have mattered what Wallace's situation was. Our recruiting department should have been able to turn around and tell him that it is their job to do what's best for the football Club, not what's best for him!!

Unfortunately the club has lacked strong leadership for a very long time.

We have followed the likes of Wallace as though they are the pied piper. Strong leadership would have told Wallace to keep pick 19 and chase the priority picks.

Hopefully Gale and co are in the process of making the changes required. From the outside it appears we are finally on the right track.

Only time will tell.

 

[RedanTiger]

In 2007/2008 we had our chances to really strengthen the list but we weren't smart enough to full utilise the system (tank) despite realising that GC17 was coming full steam ahead.

That he traded 19 off for Mcmuppet was indicative of his overall mindset.

Gawd how does this happen to us?? :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall

This talk about tanking ignores the facts.
In 2007 our most popular (judged by member votes) and powerful Board Director/Director of Football/List Manager chose to trade ND picks 18 and 35.
He and the Recruitment Manager then used all rookie picks for insurance on Collard, Sylvestor, Cartledge and Howat.
In 2008 he chose to trade ND pick 42 and also picked Hislop as our third pick and Cousins in the PSD.
In 2009 the new Director of Footy/List Manager chose to re-sign many fringe players and then trade them so we are left paying for part of Schulz's wage at Port.

As Harry has said the quick fix in recruiting was a disaster and yet was and is defended by many on this forum as "criticising the club".

That's a fair call Harry. (the following isn't directed at you)

BUT, the thing that gripes me, is that as supporters we've just had to suck it all up.
Yep you can blame past recruitment decisions, coaches, boards, managers etc.
BUT where does it leave us humble supporters, other clubs have stuffed up, but they got some "compensation" for their stuffings up.
We currently have a stable administration hell bent on turning things around, a coach/staff/players on a hiding to nothing, why? because of decisions made, mainly by their predecessors.

Have other clubs been penalised like we're about to be, in regard to pick1 for coming last or qualifying for priority picks, that the afl have changed then changed again.
How many clubs get financial assistance from the afl?? how many have been "mismanaged"? financially.

I don't give too hoots whether some people want to load all the blame at "the clubs" feet.
As a member, I'm part of this club. Nobody asked me to trade picks for players, or select the wrong player, especially since "we" all knew they should have selected "someone else".
Why should I (and many like me) have to endure more years of abject misery because the afl deems 2 new clubs a priority over mine.
These people can get stuffed. Bloody typical. Some people have their heads up their khybers, pronouncing "Its all the clubs fault". Look to the future, see what we can become, sure we need help, plenty of other clubs haven't been shy in putting their hands out.
What about us as members??
I'd be prepared to send a bloody petition to the afl and demandrequest some assistance.

While I understand and agree with a lot of what you say, you have ignored the simple fact that the majority of members re-elected the board that caused our financial problems that are at the root of our present scenario.
The chief architect was Miller and yet RFC members gave him the highest vote in the board election, despite this staff member's blackmail of the club membership.
The Treasurer at the time is still the Treasurer, while to be fair there are some fresh and I hope diligent board members on a stronger oversight financial struture.

Since the spill election the membership has shown no great interest in questioning the actions or operations of the club. Judging by this forum there has been hostility to any person questioning the actions of staff at the club.

The person hired to be List Manager was hired on a five year contract and then given the Director of Footy job when no-one could be found to do the job on the exile of Miller.

The reason why these problems have been so severe at Richmond is because WE, the members of Richmond Football Club have accepted and even encouraged poor accountability, poor structures, poor planning and poor results.

 

[Disco08]

How would you suggest the members could have affected these outcomes Redan? Certainly they could have voted for Macek and his team over Casey but how is the average member supposed to arm themselves with enough information to make the right decision without the benefit of hindsight?

 

[Willo]

This talk about tanking ignores the facts.
In 2007 our most popular (judged by member votes) and powerful Board Director/Director of Football/List Manager chose to trade ND picks 18 and 35.
He and the Recruitment Manager then used all rookie picks for insurance on Collard, Sylvestor, Cartledge and Howat.
In 2008 he chose to trade ND pick 42 and also picked Hislop as our third pick and Cousins in the PSD.
In 2009 the new Director of Footy/List Manager chose to re-sign many fringe players and then trade them so we are left paying for part of Schulz's wage at Port.

As Harry has said the quick fix in recruiting was a disaster and yet was and is defended by many on this forum as "criticising the club".

While I understand and agree with a lot of what you say, you have ignored the simple fact that the majority of members re-elected the board that caused our financial problems that are at the root of our present scenario.
The chief architect was Miller and yet RFC members gave him the highest vote in the board election, despite this staff member's blackmail of the club membership.
The Treasurer at the time is still the Treasurer, while to be fair there are some fresh and I hope diligent board members on a stronger oversight financial struture.

Since the spill election the membership has shown no great interest in questioning the actions or operations of the club. Judging by this forum there has been hostility to any person questioning the actions of staff at the club.

The person hired to be List Manager was hired on a five year contract and then given the Director of Footy job when no-one could be found to do the job on the exile of Miller.

The reason why these problems have been so severe at Richmond is because WE, the members of Richmond Football Club have accepted and even encouraged poor accountability, poor structures, poor planning and poor results.

How would you suggest the members could have affected these outcomes Redan? Certainly they could have voted for Macek and his team over Casey but how is the average member supposed to arm themselves with enough information to make the right decision without the benefit of hindsight?

Beat me to it Disco.
Redan, I disagree with your assertion that WE accepted and encouraged anything.
We may have to accept what's happened, we've no choice have we? Except of course those with the benefit of hindsight.
But I can't remember anyone actually encouraging club officials to trade away early picks, to plan poorly, to not be accountable, to have poor structures etc etc. silly statement really.

Tell me when all these decisions were BEING made who did you and all those others complain to or make your objections known? With all the decisions BEING made who was the alternative ticket. How does the rank and file membership really know who these candidates are? We had one or two elected this year that nobody knew anything about, apart what was put in a glossy brochure expousing their credentials.
It's easy to say what decisions should or should not have been made, but we can't unring that bell now, can we?

I hope and believe we have the right people in place to move us forward, perhaps not all of them will prove to be "elite" some may even be "duds", some may even be "delisted" off the Board and in various Official capacities.
But we've got to start somewhere.

My main point is/was that other clubs, for whatever reasons..Tanking, salary cap cheating, based interstate, poor financially poor facilities, poor drafting & trading, poor recruiting, poor talent identification, poor administration poor run of injuries to players, father/son rules, draft changes, priority picks, changes of rules to drafts, extra salary cap, extra rookies allowed, favourable fixturing, sponsorship attraction, extra finances... whatever.
Clubs have been given and/or taken advantage of the afl rules (or rule changes) to give themselves some chance at redeeming themselves. It isn't all just back luck, All or nearly all clubs have had some sort of benefit along the line.
There hasn't been a level playing field for donkeys years.

It's time we got some sort of go.

 

[RedanTiger]

How would you suggest the members could have affected these outcomes Redan? Certainly they could have voted for Macek and his team over Casey but how is the average member supposed to arm themselves with enough information to make the right decision without the benefit of hindsight?

The majority of the membership made these decisions. The past cannot be undone, but we must acknowledge our own share of the blame as members.

It's not as if we didn't have a really strong view of the problems before the spill election. I'm sure If you want it I can find plenty of threads relating to the board mistakes on this forum.
It's the same "hindsight" argument that is used about our recruiting and equally as false.
We've had arguments in the "Rate the Draft" thread and while I disagreed with you there, I do admire you're character to at least put yourself on the record.

As far as affecting outcomes in the future, it was suggested that we petition the AFL for assistance. I think it is more useful to petition the club about some issues that most if not all posters here can agree on, namely:

"a List Manager, separate and independant of the Director of Football and all other Football Department employees, be appointed."
"no staff member shall be employed on a contract exceeding three years."

 

[waiting since 80]

we have already received money through the equalization fund - its automatically given to clubs with crappy stadium deals and historically small membership bases

Sorry T74, yes you are correct with the stadium deal funding, i must be thinking of another fund that is given to struggling cubs?.... remember caro saying on Footy Classified 2-3 weeks ago when Richmond again was the "HotTopic"! she was suprised that we (Richmond) had never seeked a handout from the AFL even though we have this huge debt, though other clubs would grab it at the years end.

I'll try youtube it or find a podcast or something? perhaps someone here (PRE)is a wiz with the computer and will find a link or something.

 

[Disco08]

The majority of the membership made these decisions. The past cannot be undone, but we must acknowledge our own share of the blame as members.

Sorry mate, but are you saying only the members who voted for Casey should be held liable? As someone that certainly didn't vote for Casey and Miller do I have the right to be blaming others for the club's predicament? I think not.

 

[Willo]

The majority of the membership made these decisions. The past cannot be undone, but we must acknowledge our own share of the blame as members.

It's not as if we didn't have a really strong view of the problems before the spill election. I'm sure If you want it I can find plenty of threads relating to the board mistakes on this forum.
It's the same "hindsight" argument that is used about our recruiting and equally as false.
We've had arguments in the "Rate the Draft" thread and while I disagreed with you there, I do admire you're character to at least put yourself on the record.

As far as affecting outcomes in the future, it was suggested that we petition the AFL for assistance. I think it is more useful to petition the club about some issues that most if not all posters here can agree on, namely:

"a List Manager, separate and independant of the Director of Football and all other Football Department employees, be appointed."
"no staff member shall be employed on a contract exceeding three years."

I totally agree with you on that.

 

[Tigers of Old]

This talk about tanking ignores the facts.
In 2007 our most popular (judged by member votes) and powerful Board Director/Director of Football/List Manager chose to trade ND picks 18 and 35.

I sure didn't vote for him.

This is a long winded lot of nonsense Redan.
Members aren't held accountable for the actions of elected individuals.
They put faith in these people to do a job but ultimately those individuals are personally responsible for the decisions they make.
To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[RedanTiger]

Sorry mate, but are you saying only the members who voted for Casey should be held liable? As someone that certainly didn't vote for Casey and Miller do I have the right to be blaming others for the club's predicament? I think not.

No.

Up to you.

 

[brigadiertiger]

So would it be fair to say that if we get the opener next season the AFL are doing something albeit little and if they take it from us they don't care about what happens to us.

Also talking about regular big time matches in my opinion if we do lose the opener the AFL really does not either care or does want us out. Melbourne play Collingwood every Queens Birthday public holiday yet in the times they have played it they have only once attracted a crowd larger than what we and Carlton got to the opener this season.

 

[Ridley]

Im not holding my breath on any concessions coming our way.

See this is where everyone gets confused. It's not about concessions. No one is asking for concessions. All that is being asked for is the right to have the first pick in the draft for finishing on the bottom, as well as a priority pick around 17-20. That is our right as it has been for every other *smile* club that has been in the same position in the past decade. Melbourne, Carlton, Collingwood, St.Kilda, Hawthorn, West Coast etc have all been afforded these selctions after seasons that were better than ours will undoubtedly end up. And all because Demetripoo and his bunch of *smile* at AFL House are off on a grandstanding crusade to grow the game in markets when no one gives us *smile*.

I hope GC17 and GWS are the most massive failures ever seen. I hope it blows up in the AFL's face. *smile* them!

 

[Ridley]

That's a fair call Harry. (the following isn't directed at you)

BUT, the thing that gripes me, is that as supporters we've just had to suck it all up.
Yep you can blame past recruitment decisions, coaches, boards, managers etc.
BUT where does it leave us humble supporters, other clubs have stuffed up, but they got some "compensation" for their stuffings up.
We currently have a stable administration hell bent on turning things around, a coach/staff/players on a hiding to nothing, why? because of decisions made, mainly by their predecessors.

Have other clubs been penalised like we're about to be, in regard to pick1 for coming last or qualifying for priority picks, that the afl have changed then changed again.
How many clubs get financial assistance from the afl?? how many have been "mismanaged"? financially.

I don't give too hoots whether some people want to load all the blame at "the clubs" feet.
As a member, I'm part of this club. Nobody asked me to trade picks for players, or select the wrong player, especially since "we" all knew they should have selected "someone else".
Why should I (and many like me) have to endure more years of abject misery because the afl deems 2 new clubs a priority over mine.
These people can get stuffed. Bloody typical. Some people have their heads up their khybers, pronouncing "Its all the clubs fault". Look to the future, see what we can become, sure we need help, plenty of other clubs haven't been shy in putting their hands out.
What about us as members??
I'd be prepared to send a bloody petition to the afl and demandrequest some assistance.

Top post Willo.

Yes we all know it's our own fault. Big *smile* deal. Every other club that has received pick one and a priority for finishing on the bottom has only itself to blame as well. Were they penalised by the AFL like we will be?

 

[Ridley]

This talk about tanking ignores the facts.
In 2007 our most popular (judged by member votes) and powerful Board Director/Director of Football/List Manager chose to trade ND picks 18 and 35.
He and the Recruitment Manager then used all rookie picks for insurance on Collard, Sylvestor, Cartledge and Howat.
In 2008 he chose to trade ND pick 42 and also picked Hislop as our third pick and Cousins in the PSD.
In 2009 the new Director of Footy/List Manager chose to re-sign many fringe players and then trade them so we are left paying for part of Schulz's wage at Port.

As Harry has said the quick fix in recruiting was a disaster and yet was and is defended by many on this forum as "criticising the club".

While I understand and agree with a lot of what you say, you have ignored the simple fact that the majority of members re-elected the board that caused our financial problems that are at the root of our present scenario.
The chief architect was Miller and yet RFC members gave him the highest vote in the board election, despite this staff member's blackmail of the club membership.
The Treasurer at the time is still the Treasurer, while to be fair there are some fresh and I hope diligent board members on a stronger oversight financial struture.

Since the spill election the membership has shown no great interest in questioning the actions or operations of the club. Judging by this forum there has been hostility to any person questioning the actions of staff at the club.

The person hired to be List Manager was hired on a five year contract and then given the Director of Footy job when no-one could be found to do the job on the exile of Miller.

The reason why these problems have been so severe at Richmond is because WE, the members of Richmond Football Club have accepted and even encouraged poor accountability, poor structures, poor planning and poor results.

I am still staggered how RFC members voted for Casey's ticket after Miller's blackmail. *smile* unbelievable. *smile* stupid. I was already off Miller by then but he lost me forever after that.

Great move Tiges :clap

 

[Ridley]

How would you suggest the members could have affected these outcomes Redan? Certainly they could have voted for Macek and his team over Casey but how is the average member supposed to arm themselves with enough information to make the right decision without the benefit of hindsight?

How about not voting for an *smile* who tries to hold the club to ransom and blackmail?

FFS, how do you end up with with a scenario like that where a bloke has so much power that he effectively answers to himself?

 

[Tigers of Old]

See this is where everyone gets confused. It's not about concessions. No one is asking for concessions. All that is being asked for is the right to have the first pick in the draft for finishing on the bottom, as well as a priority pick around 17-20. That is our right as it has been for every other *smile*ing club that has been in the same position in the past decade. Melbourne, Carlton, Collingwood, St.Kilda, Hawthorn, West Coast etc have all been afforded these selctions after seasons that were better than ours will undoubtedly end up. And all because Demetripoo and his bunch of *smile*s at AFL House are off on a grandstanding crusade to grow the game in markets when no one gives us *smile*.

I hope GC17 and GWS are the most massive failures ever seen. I hope it blows up in the AFL's face. *smile* them!

Like I have said Riddles the main reason that the AFL are sitting on their hands is because as soon as they say the number 1 pick is back up for grabs then the tanking debate will rear it's head again.
Adelaide will all of a sudden sniff that they're a chance to pick up the number one kid and so it goes.. :spin
The Pandora's box opens once again.

No matter how much we deserve it or how sh!t we are, we are being punished because what was what was a very serious issue for the AFL that was calling their system into question has all but disappeared with the mass of concessionary picks that GC17 will receive from this year on.
As history will show there's a fair difference between the near certainty of the first couple of picks being a success and that of pick four where it becomes more of a lottery.
Tanking? What tanking?

No doubt by the time WS18 have received all their concessions, the AFL will have reworked their system again..

Another problem swept under the carpet, this time at our expense when we genuinely need assistance.

 

[Ridley]

Like I have said Riddles the main reason that the AFL are sitting on their hands is because as soon as they say the number 1 pick is back up for grabs then the tanking debate will rear it's head again.
Adelaide will all of a sudden sniff that they're a chance to pick up the number one kid and so it goes.. :spin
The Pandora's box opens once again.

No matter how much we deserve it or how sh!t we are, we are being punished because what was what was a very serious issue for the AFL that was calling their system into question has all but disappeared with the mass of concessionary picks that GC17 will receive from this year on.
As history will show there's a fair difference between the near certainty of the first couple of picks being a success and that of pick four where it becomes more of a lottery.
Tanking? What tanking?

No doubt by the time WS18 have received all their concessions, the AFL will have reworked their system again..

Another problem swept under the carpet, this time at our expense when we genuinely need assistance.

Hadn't thought of it that way but it is a reasonable argument. Either way we are getting shafted when we need the system more than any club in recent memory.

 

[RedanTiger]

Interesting about priority picks cos I would have thought the AFL was going to use the entry of the new clubs as an excuse to permanently get rid of those picks after the tanking debate of the last couple of years.

Quite ironic if Vlads plans have gone wobbly due to our horrible situation, given how they've been treated us over the years (TV, MCG, Fixture).

 

[Disco08]

How about not voting for an who tries to hold the club to ransom and blackmail?

FFS, how do you end up with with a scenario like that where a bloke has so much power that he effectively answers to himself?

Who knows? Perhaps you could ask someone on here what the saw as positives for Miller and Casey's appointment. From memory Harry was one of their staunchest supporters and is still around. Most of the other posters who were Casey supporters seemed to disappear as quickly as they arrived once the election was over.

 

[nqtiger]

Caroline speaks because she cares.

She usually has facts in hand when she speaks.

As fans we should be ropeable that the club that we love has been so ineptly led.

As fans we should be ropeable that the club that we love has fallen so far over so long a period.

As has been said many times Richmond is the Former Republic of Yogoslavia held together by Marshall Graham Tito Richmond.

Since then we have descended into being run by different fiefdoms a la Croatia, Serbia and on the change of leadership we have had ethnic cleansing.

We have had the AFL (United Nations) trying to help but we have insisted on running our agendas.

Brendan Gale, Gary March and co have started to run things properly behind the scenes.

Getting all the factions together to unite. The off field issues have to be sorted so that we become a united club that the players can have confidence in.

It may be time for a tell all book on what has gone on at Richmond. Get rid of the demons that have plagued the club for far to long.

In a sense we have to burn it down so we can rebuild. And demolishing the social club, the meeting place of all the factions may be a great start.

A truer word was never spoken, how many coaches and players were knifed in that place, and when GR passed away the fiefdoms rose.