Coach.
Three of the four guns who left went to play under a coach who coached them last year.
-
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.
Welcome to the Tigers - Daniel Rioli
- Thread starter The_General
- Start date
Three of the four guns who left went to play under a coach who coached them last year.
But what about the Rioli legacy at the RFC? What about uncle Maurice?
I can understand why the other 3 left. They all had legitimate reasons. This one has never made any sense. It seems to be a completely selfish decision.
.
Aren’t the fans the club? He signed a contract and said he was happy to be a Richmond player for life. Partway through that contract he doesn’t want to be any more. I’d like to know why.
Nope. Baker was clear his mind was made up before Mini appointed. Can’t speak for Fridge.
I did forget about Ottens and Maxfield. They were 2 that were more than solid citizens at their new clubs.
Haaarrgh. AFLHQ owns the club. The name, the colours, the marketing, the broadcasting, the licence.
there's a calculator also. which saves looking up tables.
He’s 28 for season ‘25, it’s the near perfect age to trade out, especially for pick 6. Yes, he’ll have a few more good seasons at GC (barring injury) but then age starts to take its toll.
And I think we can leave the saltiness about he and Shai leaving, we mock Geelong and others for being salty so it’s pretty hypocritical to turn on 2 ex players who’ve chosen to leave.
Look forward.
And I think we can leave the saltiness about he and Shai leaving, we mock Geelong and others for being salty so it’s pretty hypocritical to turn on 2 ex players who’ve chosen to leave.
Look forward.
I reckon Rioli will play at a very high level for the next 7 years.
I love him.
This sucks.
I love him.
This sucks.
I’m not all that salty about Shai. He had reasons outside of football (would have been nice if he’d considered that when he signed the contract, though), he also said why he wanted to return home. Rioli, on the other hand, doesn’t have that, and he’s never said why it was imperative that he break his contract to presumably complete his career elsewhere. He doesn’t have to, but he should be able to understand why people want to know. Especially in light of his comments when he signed that contract.
Players following coaches happens a lot in the NRL, its accepted as part of the system, not so much in the AFL. It hurts, but that's footy.
At first I thought it was a bad move culturally, but its not that simple. A key part of good culture is making the hard decisions and doing what's right to improve the club, so from that perspective its not. Sad to see Daniel leave the Club, but we got great compo and we move on.
At first I thought it was a bad move culturally, but its not that simple. A key part of good culture is making the hard decisions and doing what's right to improve the club, so from that perspective its not. Sad to see Daniel leave the Club, but we got great compo and we move on.
We arent part of the legal entity that is the club - indirectly as members I guess maybe. A contract is a formal agreement that can be ended with the consent of both parties and that is what happened.
You want him to give you "reasons"? Why? Will it make you feel better about him leaving? Worse? It's his life, the club got a good return, we got the three flags and many happy memories.
I think the legal reality is far more complex than that. We have rights as members, we own nothing. Ive never seen any income from the club either from revenue or sales of assets, have you?
The fixation on him giving reasons because he was contracted is weird. Shai was also contracted - he gets a pass because he has family back west, but Dan gets criticised because he doesn't?
There are plenty of reasons to change job/location apart from family. One reason might be money, and thats really his business.
In a word, yes.
That's how it has to be, otherwise we'd wander though life believing everything we hear. . Number 1 is having a reason, number 2 is how legitimate and convincing that reason is. In a nutshell, Shai's is convincing, Dan's isn't.
I don't hate him, but its disappointing.
It doesn't have to be that way, and you dont have to believe everything you hear either.
You can accept he's gone, wish him the best and move on. There, that was easy, and I didnt have to believe any corporate *smile* either way. My incredulity remains intact.
Getting an "explanation" that might be true or might be false will not satisfy you.
Each to their own of course, but I'm satisfied and you ain't. As Siddhartha Gautama said "desire only brings suffering". Ponder on that Snake as you wait for an explanation that won't be forthcoming.
Been thinking about the whole 3 of our best players have left thing, and the first question I have is 'what if they'd stayed'?
We had all 3 of them more or less available for most of this season, and we finished dead last. Assuming they had stayed, were engaged, and the rest of the list was less injured, would win more games over the next few years? Sure, probably a few. But that doesn't help a rebuild, if you're approaching it through the draft.
Maybe they all stay for another year or two or three. Does their trade value increase? Probably not. If anything, it probably goes down, and any return we get from them is lower than what we achieved by trading now. That wouldn't help a rebuild either.
And if they'd stayed, how long would it take to accumulate the number of 1st rounders we have now. 3 years? And what does that do to the development timeline and maturation curve of the list? It pushes it way out. And what if those later drafts are shallower? Or Tassie-compromised? Spreading out access to potentially fewer 1st-rounders over a number of years clearly wouldn't help our rebuild either.
Not to mention the right-time-right-place factor. I love Rioli, but that was once-in-a-lifetime overs from GC. And the WA teams won't always have the draft capital they had this year, or the same set of list needs. Look at what Port got for Houston, or the Doggies got for Smith. The planets don't always align when you want to do a deal - which makes it so much more important to recognise and act on the good opportunities when they arise.
Basically, whichever way I look at it, the opportunity cost of holding onto Baker, Rioli and Bolton was just way too high. It'll be hard watching them run around for other teams, but I understand why it was necessary.
We had all 3 of them more or less available for most of this season, and we finished dead last. Assuming they had stayed, were engaged, and the rest of the list was less injured, would win more games over the next few years? Sure, probably a few. But that doesn't help a rebuild, if you're approaching it through the draft.
Maybe they all stay for another year or two or three. Does their trade value increase? Probably not. If anything, it probably goes down, and any return we get from them is lower than what we achieved by trading now. That wouldn't help a rebuild either.
And if they'd stayed, how long would it take to accumulate the number of 1st rounders we have now. 3 years? And what does that do to the development timeline and maturation curve of the list? It pushes it way out. And what if those later drafts are shallower? Or Tassie-compromised? Spreading out access to potentially fewer 1st-rounders over a number of years clearly wouldn't help our rebuild either.
Not to mention the right-time-right-place factor. I love Rioli, but that was once-in-a-lifetime overs from GC. And the WA teams won't always have the draft capital they had this year, or the same set of list needs. Look at what Port got for Houston, or the Doggies got for Smith. The planets don't always align when you want to do a deal - which makes it so much more important to recognise and act on the good opportunities when they arise.
Basically, whichever way I look at it, the opportunity cost of holding onto Baker, Rioli and Bolton was just way too high. It'll be hard watching them run around for other teams, but I understand why it was necessary.
Huh? I've accepted it, but I don't love it.
I find the post odd, but on the buddhism thing, Buddhism has very limited applicability to footy. Its all about disconnecting and feeling no passion about anything. If that is your starting point, what is the point of footy? Anyway thats probably another thread ha ha!
Plenty of factors:
- Dimma
- More money
- Home games in Darwin 3x a year
- Missus wants to
- Melbourne's cold and he's done 10 winters
- No success at Richmond for the rest of his career
