Roast The Chronicles of Alan Richardson

[CaptainRisky]

Logic is that the 22year old has lost his pace and kicking penetration.

22 and lost his penetration , thats a bit of a worry

 

[lewdogs]

Lol
Righto

You would seriously rather have Freeman on our list than Hannebery?

 

[StCicatriz]

So they admit it's not the player himself, but his development... but they sack the player, not the developers.

Oh boy is this club in for a rude awakening.

i think its a bit of both tbh and restructuring the list somewhat

but its a damning comment and something dal spoke about last week

 

[StCicatriz]

22 and lost his penetration , thats a bit of a worry

what if you never had it... asking for a friend.

 

[CaptainRisky]

You would seriously rather have Freeman on our list than Hannebery?

Is there another option ,,,,,, Neither

 

[Persevering Saint]

Is there another option ,,,,,, Neither

So Cap, you were saying before that I was imagining things when I mentioned Paddy may be traded? I'm not having a go, but I'd love for you to elaborate...

 

[CaptainRisky]

what if you never had it... asking for a friend.

Blue pills should fix it for your Friend

Or was that Green or maybe Yellow pills , damn it just take one of each

 

[CaptainRisky]

So Cap, you were saying before that I was imagining things when I mentioned Paddy may be traded? I'm not having a go, but I'd love for you to elaborate...

I just thought you maybe adding up two and two and getting Five , its all good mate if your right i sure wont lose sleep over it , give me Bruce , Members and Battle any day of the week

 

[gringo2011]

Why would the club sign someone that is cooked?

You're right, they are chalk and cheese. One is a 3-time All Australian, the other has played two games of AFL football.

We are trying to improve. Seems obvious which player will improve us as a side.

Because we have already negotiated with him without a medical because Lethlean's his dads best mate.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

22 and lost his penetration , thats a bit of a worry

It can happen when you continually tear the muscle from the bone(r)

 

[CaptainRisky]

It can happen when you continually tear the muscle from the bone(r)

You seem to know a lot about this problem and its not because your a Doctor either

 

[lewdogs]

Because we have already negotiated with him without a medical because Lethlean's his dads best mate.

Have we signed him already? Didn't realise, thought he was playing for Sydney in the finals next weekend.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

Have we signed him already? Didn't realise, thought he was playing for Sydney in the finals next weekend.

We got special dispensation from the AFL due to his overly cooked body.

They agreed it was vital we got him into our high performance program as soon as possible.

First day...

 

[CaptainRisky]

We got special dispensation from the AFL due to his overly cooked body.

They agreed it was vital we got him into our high performance program as soon as possible.

First day...

That's not Hanna's , that's you Doc

 

[Dr Spaceman]

That's not Hanna's , that's you Doc

Unfortunately I didn't manage to get it all the way up there like you do in your signature move

 

[gringo2011]

Have we signed him already? Didn't realise, thought he was playing for Sydney in the finals next weekend.

Did I say he signed?

 

[Crusty Undies]

We want blood more than the sans culottes during the French Revolution. Sack him.

 

[lewdogs]

Did I say he signed?

Ok, so let me ask this, how many of the players that are talking to other clubs would have gone to those clubs and had a medical already if they are still representing their current club and under contract?

If we haven't had a medical with him yet does it mean we won't do one?

 

[VDS66]

what if you never had it... asking for a friend.

Is that you,Justin?

 

[Saints43]

You would seriously rather have Freeman on our list than Hannebery?

You know the amount they'd be getting paid is different, yeah?
And there's a salary cap so it's all about bang for your buck.

 

[Crusty Undies]

You would seriously rather have Freeman on our list than Hannebery?

It's not a 1 for 1 though is it. 1 is keeping a potentially very good player on a minimum wage for 1 year with no trade cost. 1 is trading for a clearly cooked mid that Sydney wouldn't be letting go otherwise for more than he's worth both trade and salary wise. Also Freeman wasn't keeping a list spot. Could've had both if you really want Hanners there are plenty of worse players on the list than Freezer imo.

 

[Present Not Past]

Trivia question in todays Sydney Daily Telegraph:
Which VFL/AFL has lost the most games?
Sadly I knew the answer to that one - Us.
And even more sadly we have a coach that perpetuates this
Stop the world, I want to get off.

 

[lewdogs]

It's not a 1 for 1 though is it. 1 is keeping a potentially very good player on a minimum wage for 1 year with no trade cost. 1 is trading for a clearly cooked mid that Sydney wouldn't be letting go otherwise for more than he's worth both trade and salary wise. Also Freeman wasn't keeping a list spot. Could've had both if you really want Hanners there are plenty of worse players on the list than Freezer imo.

This is the thing isn't it... you're saying he's "clearly cooked" but I'm just trying to point out that in reality you have no idea, it's complete guesswork made to fulfil a negative view you have of the club atm.

 

[PoppedCorn]

You would seriously rather have Freeman on our list than Hannebery?

Yup

 

[StFly]

An open question to the board. Lade gets the arse from Richmond because he is rubbish and they win the GF. Goes to PA and they have a rubbish year. He then comes to us. Kingsley is part of the player destruction at St Kilda. Richmond then hire Kingsley.

So, is Richmond mad for taking on Kingsley and flicking Lade? Or was Kingsley sick of Richo’s crap and Richmond pounced?

Is Kingsley any good? Was he one of the line coaches who argued with Richo all the time?

Who hires the coaches?

Serious questions folks that I am hoping you can answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I've stated previously, there are about 12ish level 4 certified coaches in the AFL at present, Kingsley is one of them, as is one Robert Harvey for reference. This has been spoken about internally as a prerequisite for future head coaches, though it is just discussion as hasn't been ratified at all, but basically if you're looking at current coaches to become head coach, from current assistants you have those 12 with best credentials. Some might think it's just say a plaque that you stick on a fridge and look at from time to time, but you need to understand and grow and evolve to progress and each step is not for everyone so it's not a question of "is Kingsley any good?" it's one of "is he a right fit for us in the here and now?"

There are journeymen coaches, those who cap sand rotate between clubs as they are good at one facet and that one facet, Lade might be tracking that way for example in that say 3/5 indicators he's fine but Club B needs the 2 he's not in the present and next 5 so he's moved on and replaced. Doesn't mean he's bad or worse, just not currently required.

You'd pretty much have to be Blighty to be a bad coach, as he gave no shits about anything which happened and left first chance he got.

Shit win rate aside since many variables and fingers in pies, is it Richo and Richo only or is it the many variables including our inner circle previous basketcase club muddying the waters with those many fingers in pies and split focus?

The one thing people don't want sheds light on such things and allows for change: time.

Bassett was a fan of Richo. He’s based his early election on a current review of senior coaching. This is management, not player based. It’s a way to climb he ladder as he has and he’s going to stand by what he’s said. I can’t definitively say he’s sacked, what I can say is, his position is under more review and pressure than it has ever been before.

If he's never been under a review then he's not worked at a club as thee are KPI's in any business or contract agreement to be met, you can still be a "fan" of something and increase scope of scrutiny if you carry the opinion that exclusions should not have been excluded. It's neither detrimental nor indicative of a change in terms, just change in scope unless otherwise the review is ceased, reworked and restarted as a change in terms immediately invalidates all unnecessary data from the current review.

And given people have lost jobs with said review, that would then be damning on the current reviewers. Slippery slope HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

His position was already timed with public statements pending review next year, no added pressure if the timetable is shifted forward, there's just consolidation of accounts, be it financial, judicial or otherwise.