-
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.
When will Bernie go !!
- Thread starter Tigaman
- Start date
YinnarTiger said:
Geez you sure devote a lot of time to the axe grinder. Move on mate!
Man there's so many sad sacks around here :hihi
Baron Samedi said:
and that is supposed to be important to me is it lol? Get over yourself champ.
shawry said:
You're the one jumping on here with all guns blazing :hihi fine with me if that's how you want to spend your time
What an odd fellow
Sintiger said:
So I was correct in picking you for a teacher. Easy. But you've hardly addressed any of the specifics I cited as examples of just some known financial issues for the club, thus casting grave doubts over the 'wisdom' of blowing $1m+ on sacking Hardwick. You are welcome to 'win' the point that RFC can afford it, if it means the club would still exist and be viable afterwards. However, any waste of $1m+ is a significant debit from other essential and proactive spending items which I have cited several examples of, from keeping DM to funding a competitive VFL team etc. etc.
I just fail to see how anyone who is financially savvy would ever argue that burning $1m+ is sound expenditure, supported by the wider and football context I have provided:
a) He was always going to be re-contracted for 2017 given previous 3 finals reached and erosive media attention otherwise
b) The list was a valid justification too; reached the limit with stop-gap players and failed to replace midfield grunt with matching quality (of Tuck/Jackson); draftees not developing as hoped
c) New coach unlikely to make immediate huge leap forward in '17 alone
d) This approach bears fruit; either improvement up the ladder to finals again, or it spells the end of Dimma's era. He may step away in that case, or only 1 yr payout. Either way, saving the club considerable $$$$$$
IMHO, only a minority of financial members would ever see a $1m+ burn as 'wisdom'! There were many other factors in the WB success than Beveridge alone.
I have never been a teacher but i have worked as a guest lecturer at a university in accounting and finance because of my background. So it wasn't so easy was it?leon said:
You have missed the point completely and basically everything you have said above is irrelevant to that point. Whether it is a wise thing to do is a different issue but it had nothing to do with my post.
I have never said that paying Dimma out was a sound financial decision, just that it was affordable
leon said:
Its complicated yes, but its reasonably easy to make a case I think. I don't think it would be a mill, it might be, but there'd be payout clauses after a certain period. But even putting that aside, even if it is a mill, there comes a time when its good money after bad, you can get membership and merch bounce from new coach etc etc.
leon said:
Wrong.
Your main platform of argument is plain wrong.
Hardwick was not 'always' gonna get extended. The club thought long and hard about it. Cos, ya know, no finals wins. Media is a very minor factor. No one would've pilloried the club for taking a hard line with Hardwick.
They made the wrong decision.
Now they need to pay up. They are reluctant because they have built their regime on Hardwick. A big ole mess Leon, just like your post.
Baron Samedi said:
Couldn't reply yesterday as had to go out. But, no, think the amusement is more on my part, Baron.
So the prior 'recruiting firm to assist, or perhaps a panel of ex coaches' chose Terry Wallace, while Dawthorn took much longer but went with some guy named Clarkson.
Then the last panel appointed Dimma. No doubt two great panel decisions by RFC that YOU fully endorse, BS?
It's clear the 2013 debacle altered Hardwick's coaching style. All our finals losses have been weird in themselves: had to play 9th team instead of the Essendope rabble who actually finished 8th and we had just smashed in Rd.23; then the kick against the wind mess against a rampant confidence team away to PA; finally losing to Norf after they got to rest key players in Rd. 23 (thanks for that AFL).
Everyone has an opinion, but I don't think anyone can attribute with certainty these painful losses totally at the coach's failures. Certainly he shares plenty of responsibility, but so do the players, list managers and sheer inscrutable fate.
However, what is most amusing is that you argue that he is fully to blame for the 2014 reversion in tactics and resultant failures, but had nothing to do with the successful attacking game in '13, nor the turnaround in '14, or success in making finals again at least in '15.
Sure these arguments have been done to death though. BTW, rarely miss a game, whether by attending HGs or TV for aways. Just don't see things always as depressing as you.
Baron Samedi said:
Firstly to clarify. If you researched my own posts of early 2016, I wanted the club to stand firm and wait till season's end to decide on Dimma. So personally, disagreed. But I was influenced subsequently by reading an article or listening to an interview (cannot remember if Gale was involved or quoted) that put forward a strong case for how the media would have hounded our coach and club all season if poor results persisted, as they often did. A hiccup at another club becomes a 'meltdown' at us, for the media just love nothing better that another RFC doomsday story to flog their papers or online hits. It becomes very destabilising, the only story, leading to an obsessive 'when's he getting sacked' harassment.
But don't accept that if you choose, fine. His reappointment for a year was still reasonable on last 3 finals reaches. My post stands up strong.
The 'wrong decision' was 2 years. Few disagree.
leon said:
which begs the question, why was he given 2 years instead of 1?
after he was given a contract extension in late 2013, I argued and argued for months that it should have been 1 year instead of 2 (keeping in mind he was already contracted for 2014). last time around he didn't deserve an extension, but 1 year would have been a half-reasonable compromise. why the fixation with 2 years? He also got a 2 year extension in early 2012 (when he was already contracted for 2012).
Using your expertise, what amount of loss could the club post this year and it still remain financially sound/viable to sack Bernie?Sintiger said:
Sintiger said:
And you may not be the only person who has, or is, working at a high level in education and perhaps on an ongoing basis, rather than contractual. But in a broader field.
You want to confine the discussion to some vague, waffly, narrow frame of 'affordability'. It's meaningless. You or I may be able to lose say, $100K, and remain afloat, financially viable, able to recover, not bankrupt etc. Does that mean it's financially prudent? Does no harm?
Does that mean you want to blow $1m on nothing: a write-off, it's good expenditure, investment, use of $. If it prevented the club from having enough dosh to keep DM ongoing, other top players, Balme and Caracella, plus field a decent VFL side, I know what the members would think. There's the Yazz write-off already to cover.
That's the real world issue. A significant loss of money in one area will inevitably cause damage in spending ability elsewhere. So Woolworths really could 'afford' the Masters debacle, eh? A great success!
tommystigers said:
A lot would depend on the $$$ we would get back from the impetus of a new coach with merchandise, sponsors and membership.
If we got away to a good start under a new coach the payout would cover itself for instance.
We operated as a club with $6 million in debt 5 years ago and we could still operate with debt if we had to. Essendon has mountains of debt as do other clubs .tommystigers said:
If we want to operate debt free and spend close to the salary cap (which is highly recommended imo) then we still have significant cash reserves of $4.5 million or so and are now a long way from being in debt. It all depends on what happens with other parts of the operating result. From memory in 2016 we had a small loss but that included a debt write off but still had an increase in cash.
I would have thought a $1 million payout would be easily possible but I am by no means recommending it.
Issues like a retaining Martin, payout of Yarran etc are handled within the salary cap. If we pay dusty a lot then it will means we are not paying someone else. The salary cap is increasing but so is the AFL funding .
My view is that the decision to retain Dimma or not has to be a football decision.
We would be better off directing our attention and comments to the real problem stifling the club: the problem that resides at the very top of the organisation- a president and vice-president who have sat on the board for more than 10 years and refuse to budge despite the shambles they have presided over in all that time (eg as occurred at the last AGM). Their removal would not cost the club a cent. The club desperately needs leaders who are tough decision makers and have loads of football nous, a la the Bulldogs' Gordon and other presidents at the helm of other premiership clubs over the last decade and during the Tigers' last golden era (when was that again?). A tough, knowledgeable board would make sure the senior coach gets all the tools (particularly smart recruitment people) he needs in order to put together a finals and premiership outfit. So how about directing our attention to the club leaders with not only words but action to bring about the change that's urgently needed. Some discussions on how to do that would be refreshing.
