Does anyone have any insights to share about performance-based contracts?
I’m all for them, for players, coaches, administrators etc etc, but the way I see it, they must be very carefiully structured to produce the right results. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but Danny Frawley’s contract, with it’s incentives based around finals, membership levels, attendances, number of wins etc may be counter-productive. If the coach is so focussed on results, and short term results to boot, then is it any wonder that short term decisions are made?
Perhaps the contracts should place greater emphasis on the processes and policies that produce winning teams, rather than on the results themselves. For instance, if a club like Carlton hires a coach like Pagan and decides on a rebuilding phase, then it would seem ridiculous to commit Pagan to a contract like Danny’s. Ditto Peter Rohde.
Similarly with a player, is it not possible to write a performance-based contract that takes its rewards from KPI’s such as ‘team assists’, ‘one-percenters’, ‘effective possessions’ — things that focus on an individual player’s strengths and weaknesses in the process of playing games, rather than on the obvious indicators such as possessions, goals, games played, finals played etc etc. Such KPI’s could also be tied into the overall game plan. Of course, this may already happen, I don’t know, but from what you gather along the way, the incentives are based on factors that may not be all that productive in the long term.
Maybe this is an area where the ‘Ruthless Richmond’ mentality has really let us down, and has reflected in the way we contract everyone, including coaching and playing personnel right through to how we approach recruiting, selection, even how we handle the media, members and supporters.
Is this part of the malaise that affects our club?
I’m all for them, for players, coaches, administrators etc etc, but the way I see it, they must be very carefiully structured to produce the right results. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but Danny Frawley’s contract, with it’s incentives based around finals, membership levels, attendances, number of wins etc may be counter-productive. If the coach is so focussed on results, and short term results to boot, then is it any wonder that short term decisions are made?
Perhaps the contracts should place greater emphasis on the processes and policies that produce winning teams, rather than on the results themselves. For instance, if a club like Carlton hires a coach like Pagan and decides on a rebuilding phase, then it would seem ridiculous to commit Pagan to a contract like Danny’s. Ditto Peter Rohde.
Similarly with a player, is it not possible to write a performance-based contract that takes its rewards from KPI’s such as ‘team assists’, ‘one-percenters’, ‘effective possessions’ — things that focus on an individual player’s strengths and weaknesses in the process of playing games, rather than on the obvious indicators such as possessions, goals, games played, finals played etc etc. Such KPI’s could also be tied into the overall game plan. Of course, this may already happen, I don’t know, but from what you gather along the way, the incentives are based on factors that may not be all that productive in the long term.
Maybe this is an area where the ‘Ruthless Richmond’ mentality has really let us down, and has reflected in the way we contract everyone, including coaching and playing personnel right through to how we approach recruiting, selection, even how we handle the media, members and supporters.
Is this part of the malaise that affects our club?
