Debate of the week topic. Danny's contract.

[Rosy]

Does anyone want to discuss the following snippets from an article posted elsewhere on the board?

I am really interested to hear other viewpoints on this.
It's such a major issue for the future of the RFC.

I realise there are people here who will bag Danny whatever happens, and there are people who would stick up for him even if we won a few wooden spoons.

It would be great to read objective thoughts from both sides of the fence without the usual bias and abuse.

The non-finals clause was inserted by the Richmond board at the end of 2001,
providing them with an option of not extending Frawley's three-year deal
into a final year because of poor performance.
It was struck off this year on the insistence of the club's new general
manager of football operations, Greg Miller.

"Danny Frawley will be coach until the end of 2004 at the very least," Casey
said. "We'll begin negotiations for a new contract early next season."

 

[Rosy]

I can’t see anything positive at all from either of the above quotes.

To me it’s a matter of why burn bridges if you don’t have to.

Our last two seasons are totally unacceptable imo. None of us here know the real reasons the team has been crap.

Consider the possibility, even if slight, that Danny isn’t up to coaching for whatever reason. Maybe he’s just not good at it, maybe he can’t get his word across to players, or maybe there is a personality issue we don’t know about.

I am not saying there is anything like that, but what harm was a get out clause? I would love to know when it was altered. I bet it was before we went on the downward spiral we’ve been on for the last several weeks.

If there were any issues between the coaches and playing team holding us back wouldn’t it be more damning to extend contracts just for the sake of trying to prove Richmond don’t sack coaches anymore.

If that get out clause were acted on it wouldn’t be sacking a coach really. It would be matter of a coach not fulfilling the terms of contract.

In a very hypothetical scenario what if we didn’t win another game this year? What if Leigh Matthews, who is out of contract at the end of this season, decides he’s done all he can at Brisbane and fancies the challenge of getting the Tigers back on track?

I for one would have liked the get out clause still in tact so any available options at the time could be considered.

As for talking of renegotiating Danny’s contract early next season, that really makes me angry. What if we have another season like this one? A few wins, sign a fat contract, then rocket down the ladder again. How many years of non-success to we have to endure.

I hope the powers to be are very careful here. That one particular statement will stop me buying a membership as soon as they become available at the end of the season for the first time in as long as I can remember.

I bet I am not the only person who will wait and see what happens. I pay good money for membership of this club, and I’d like to see it used wisely.

Of course this is only looking at the negative side of things, mainly because I don’t see a lot of positive with these issues.

If we win every game convincingly for the rest of the season I’ll reassess my opinion, in the meantime I’d love someone to convince me the above quotes are the right course for the club to be taking.

 

[TigerFurious]

I think the no finals clause was a mistake and its shown in Frawleys short sighted coaching. The list was never near winning a premiership and the coach and board should have seen this. Instead we see recruiting like Hudson etc and a lack of drafting over the last two years and this has greatly set back the club and will affect the list for years to come

Its disturbing that so many people at the club (coach, admin) rated the list so highly. You have really got to question their judgment.

Regarding the second quote. Frawley has done absolutely nothing to warrant another contract extension. There are many question marks over his gameplan, motivational ability, direction, judgment etc to suggest he might not make it as a senior coach and the board should let his current contract expire first before making any rash decisions.

 

[MC24]

Its disturbing that so many people at the club (coach, admin) rated the list so highly. You have really got to question their judgment.

Frawley has done absolutely nothing to warrant another contract extension. There are many question marks over his gameplan, motivational ability, direction, judgment etc to suggest he might not make it as a senior coach and the board should let his current contract expire first before making any rash decisions./quote]

Agree TF. I think that has left a lot of supporters bemused, to say the least.

What having Danny as coach has done, is allow us to get to this point where everyone, including the Club, can see where our real faults are. In the past we have made the coach the scapegoat. Whether or not Danny is the right man as coach is another matter, but that we can now get to see our real faults is something in itself.

At least something can and will be done about it. That has not been the case in the past.

What was annoying last night, and seems to be the case in all our losses, is the inability of players to stick together as a team. When the going gets tough, too many of our players go AWOL.

Until we get a group of players who understand what being in a team is all about and are prepared to play as a team, then I don't know how we can hope to achieve any more than we have to now.

It frustrates me to the core. And I'm sure there are lots of supporters out there who are just tired of the same old, same old.

How can a team consisting of Stafford, Richardson and Ottens only kick six goals in four quarters of football?

I won't go on, it's just too depressing.

 

[mightytiges]

The non-finals clause was inserted by the Richmond board at the end of 2001,
providing them with an option of not extending Frawley's three-year deal
into a final year because of poor performance.
It was struck off this year on the insistence of the club's new general
manager of football operations, Greg Miller.

The clause was apparently removed as a condition asked for by Greg Miller before he said he would accept to come to Tigerland. Although given the last month it would be tempting to use it, IMO the clause shouldn't have been there in the first place. Saying that if we don't make the finals you're out encourages coaches to think short term. A bit of a worry if the admin still thinks that way and overrates our list to that degree. Chris Connelly said the magic words yesterday - I'm paraphrasing here - "I'm not here to scrape into the finals and finish 7-8th. I want a side that finishes in the top 4 regularly".

On the other I wouldn't mind having a play well or else clause in certain players contracts that are longer than 2 years ;D.

"Danny Frawley will be coach until the end of 2004 at the very least," Casey
said. "We'll begin negotiations for a new contract early next season."

Once again a case of the club opening it's big mouth when there was no need to. Whether we are travelling well or not, all positions should be reviewed on how they are performing at the end of the season NOT at the beginning or midway through.

---------------------------------------

I'm expecting at least 3 things to happen over this summer:

1. A total clean out of our list even if it means we have one of the youngest lists in the AFL next year. We need to rebuild the list based around the few good core players we do have. No trading or drafting fringe players from other teams.

2. A total abandonment of our 40 year old style of play of kicking long to talls as well as getting rid of this reliance on negative and grinding tactics to win (sic) matches. This is IMO is one of the main reasons why we are losing members as it's boring to watch a side kick less than 10 goals each and every week. Introduce an attacking 21st century style like the top clubs play.

3. More ball-handling and skill training over pre-season and during the year.

(OK this next bit is wishful thinking but along the same lines as point 3, I would also love if there was a simulator with a big screen that players could practice their decision making and peripheral vision skills. )

If above 3 things aren't done then we need to get a new coaching panel that will implement these changes the following year.

 

[gustiger12]

The "Finals Clause" was ridiculous in the first place.

Firstly there are so many outside factors that can influence whether a side makes the finals and finals alone cannot be the only measure of success or failure.

It is hardly encouraging to a coach to be to ruthless with the list when wholesale changes will almost ineviatably result in going backwards in the short term if those changes are made with the future in mind.

As TF said you can hardly blame FRAWLEY for some of the apparent stop gap measures when you have a clause like that hanging over your head.

I think is shows the foresight of MILLER, by having it removed personally.

How would any other coach want to come here if he expected to have such a clause in his contract. I am sure MATHEW, SHEEDY, PAGAN or MALTHOUSE would not agree to such a stupid clause.

Effectively what it means is that if you put the longterm success of the club first you put your career on the line. Now say the club had gone out and got, GODDARD, SCHAMMER or WELLS and traded for a few other youngsters. I doubt that we would have made the finals this year, and maybe we would have won even less games than we have, but I don't think to many would be upset.

The crux of the matter should be is he doing a good job, not whether we make the finals or not in a given year.

MILLER himself said he believes we are three years away from where we want to be so he would be hypocrytical to allow such a cause to stay. I doubt even SHEEDY or MATHEWS would walk into the place and guarantee that they would take us to the PROMISED land in one year and agree that if they failed they would walk.......

At the end of the day what does making the finals mean if you are just making up the numbers and have little or no chance of going all the way. What I want is the cup, not just a finals appearance. We had that and were shown to be a long way short of the mark, but hard to take a long term approach with short term clauses that will end your career in your contract.

I am not jumping to the defence of spud here, I just believe it is a very short sighted clause to have in anyones contract.. Maybe a little more thoughtful negotiating would be a better answer.

If he is not up to it get rid of him, but don't rely on some self-defeating contract clause to do it.

Having said that I too would be disappointed if contract negotiations started early next year. We need to assess a lot of things before we head down that path IMHO, including what else will be available on the market. I believe that any management would be negligent if they did not fully assess ALL their options in making an appointment at a senior level.

I hope that when they say they will start negotiations, those negotiations will include all POSSIBLE AVAILABLE canditates to ensure we get the BEST AVAILABLE for the club, whoever that maybe.

Hopefully after the trade and draft period we will have a fair idea where we are headed as a club and if there aren't some serious changes to our list I for one will be very disappointed.

GO TIGERS

 

[Harry]

Frawely took a gamble and lost. Frawely was certain that we had the list and the game plan to win a premiership. As a result he recruited for the short term and was badly mistaken.

Now I would be prepared to forgive him for this short term recruiting because in real life to achieve a high return there is an associated high risk involved. I would be prepared to forgive him IF he was heading the team in the right direction. If we were playing a modern, attacking, exciting type of play regardless of the scoreboard.

Unfortunately this is where I draw the line. I watch Richmond every week and there is no sign of this style of play that I'm looking for - the style of play the better teams play. It has been well documented that we play a boring, negative, scraggy game - even by the optimists - and this reason alone is why the get out clause to Frawely's contract should be honored.

Tiger friends of mine didn't become members this year because as they put it - "Richmond are boring". This hits home because this attitude is growing stronger and stronger with the tiger faithful and will lead to a downfall in memberships. Some of you say that we need to stick with the club through thick and thin and that we don't really need those supporters who jump off. My question to this is - do we really not need them? If we think 23,000 is bad enough can we afford to lose any more?

Agree with rosy - if Danny's services are no longer required at the end of this year would this be a case of sacking him or merely letting the contract take its natural course?

AFL is a cut throat industry and not every one can be a successful coach.

 

[MC24]

We seriously need to do something MT. We don't look like we are going anywhere.

What is annoying is seeing experienced players who never look. Leon Cameron is a perfect example. There were instances where his first, second and last thought was to go sideways, without even looking if there was a better option further afield. This becomes a widespread thing amongst our players when we a looking down the barrel.

I don't know how many times our 'better credentialled/experienced' players do this, game after game. It's a wonder something didn't go through the tv last night.

Players such as Coughlan and Newman, with their inexperience, at least look like they try to create something. Unlike some others who, under pressure, panic first and worry about the consequences later.

This all comes back to playing as a team. Our players have to try to do it all themselves, because we just don't support one another enough. The opposition show us up in this area every week and we never learn from it. This is our biggest killer.

Change this aspect of the way we play and we can only improve.

 

[Rosy]

I realise that hardly any thread stays on topic, but it would be good if people could stick to the topic of the debate here, which is opinions on Danny's contract.

There are plenty of other threads to discuss the playing list and all our shortcomings.

Of course they are relevant on this one if they are used in relation to opinions on the contract quotes.

 

[gustiger12]

Tiger friends of mine didn't become members this year because as they put it - "Richmond are boring". This hits home because this attitude is growing stronger and stronger with the tiger faithful and will lead to a downfall in memberships. Some of you say that we need to stick with the club through thick and thin and that we don't really need those supporters who jump off. My question to this is - do we really not need them? If we think 23,000 is bad enough can we afford to lose any more?

I agree with you wholeheartedly here Harry. We cannot afford to lose our membership base under any circumstances.

I think we all generally agree we need some serious change, its just a matter of where the focus should be.

Where ever they decide we need to make changes I just hope it is for the better.

 

[MC24]

Sorry Rosy. I started out talking about the topic, believe it or not, but went off on another tangent.

 

[Rosy]

I started out talking about the topic, believe it or not, but went off on another tangent.

As we all tend to do, and as is what makes the boards interesting. ;D

It's just this is one topic that everyone who reads it should have an opinion on.

It's something that could have drastic effects on the future of our club. Scarey.

 

[gustiger12]

I have a suggestion.....take it out of spuds contract and put it in a few of the players contracts. Maybe then they would realise that they have some responsibility in this equation.

By the way just saw JUDD kick a sensational goal against the SWANS. All I can say is we should be going hard after that Tiger boy.

 

[DragicevicFan]

While the club should be aiming for stability, I personally dont see much point having stability for the sake of it, when the team isnt performing.

If Danny has another year on his contract, then I guess we dont have much option but to honour it, and if he lives up to his promises and clears out the deadwood on the list, we should get a fair indication of his ability next year. If we were to fail again next season, 5 years for 1 finals series would certainly not be good enough for a contract extension, and to suggest we are ready to extend the contract at the start of next season is riduculous. Extending the contract after the 2001 was a futile exercise also, as I dont think too many clubs would have been trying to poach Danny anyway.

To me, removing the clause was a strange thing to do, and one which I dont agree with. The clause was a good thing in my opinion, it gave us a chance to get out if the team isnt performing, which they arent. To now remove the clause seems as though we are too scared to make a tough decision on Danny and his performance.

I'm happy to let Danny finish out this season, and see what he does at the end of this year with the list. If tough decisions are made, we have a cleanout, trade a big name, get some high picks and recruit kids, not other clubs rejects, I will give him one more year, which i guess we have to if he lasts long enough to do the trading and drafting, but would welcome a mid season sacking next season if things are not working.

 

[Koalalill]

I agree with Gustiger12 on this one. Granted, I am one person who thinks Danny should stay but the original clause IMO was foolish and only further highlights our Club's penchant for short- term fixes rather than long term strategies. The clause seems to have been put there as a "get out of jail" card for the board. I cannot remember our Board ever saying - we need to rebuild it has always been we must contest finals. In other words they have never taken the approach of Geelong, Collingwood or like North last year when they appointed Laidley

Greg Miller in saying it was unreasonable I think showed to a degree how far behind we are when it comes to being a professional and united Club (like the Collingwoods and Essendons). Whether people agree with his methods or not, Greg Miller is considered the best in the business and his knowledge and expertise is far greater than mine will ever be and with that in mind his reasoning for wanting the clause removed has greater weight than mine ever will.

MT, makes an interesting point regarding this type of clause making coaches think short term. I think it also reflects that the board is thinking short term too. Season 2001 in some ways has created this debate that we now seem immersed in. It was after 2001 that Danny was given a contract extension by the current board who probably believed short term we had a great chance to win a flag. History has shown that we are fair way off it and isn't it ironic that an outsider could come straight away and see it.

As to whether they should start negoiating a new agreement at the beginning of next season. I believe that is the wrong option. Let the coach see out his current deal and assess after the season by looking at the big picture rather than where we finish on the ladder. Personally, I doubt a new contract would be discussed prior to the end of next year - I think as it was mentioned on another post - it is all about directing pressure off the coach so he can do his job.

 

[diggler]

Contracts are made to be broken. eg Blight, Brittain, Alves, etc etc etc.
Believe me, Clinton Casey, wont be so warm and fuzzy come september if we finish out of the 8. He keeps a low profile and is no fool. He knows we are a joke and will look after his own interests instead of that imposter Frawley.
Mark my words, it will be a bloodbath. This talk of Spud being safe next year is a smokescreen. Action behind the scenes is happening right now sportsfans. The Richmond football club wont put up with dunderbrain spud for another year.

 

[Rosy]

Personally, I doubt a new contract would be discussed prior to the end of next year - I think as it was mentioned on another post - it is all about directing pressure off the coach so he can do his job.

Well that is a very dangerous game to be playing in my opinion.

Richmond are embarrassing with some of the statements they come out with.

When membership is so vital to the club, why make statements that put it at further risk?

I'd love to see a poll of all members. I imagine the vast majority wouldn't be happy at the mention of renegotiating a contract early in the season.

If it isn't planned then they shouldn't say. Am sick of the crap.

 

[DragicevicFan]

Mark my words, it will be a bloodbath. This talk of Spud being safe next year is a smokescreen. Action behind the scenes is happening right now sportsfans. The Richmond football club wont put up with dunderbrain spud for another year.

Do you know something Diggler??

 

[gustiger12]

Come on Diggles let us in on the secret. You seem to know something you are not telling us......

Give us a ray of sunshine Diggles.

Even Rosy's turning Feral (LMAO)

 

[Rampaging_Richo]

By the nature of contracts these days, and the fact that a payout would be required to sack him, the only real chance we have of Danny being gone is if he quits at seasons end.

The get out clause wasn't a great idea, as it left danny vulnerable to his own stupidity that getting duds like Hudson, Houlihan etc.. would make us better, rather than invest in quality youth to give the club a base for the future. However, it has highlighted Danny lack of vision and ability to truely build a list of footballers.

Four years should have been enough for Danny to show he was taking the club in the right direction. Even if we didn't make the finals, at least if there was something to look forward to, he would be safe.

His contract should terminated at seasons end, but won't be.