You may be right, only those in the inner sanctum of the club will know what the plan is. However, I'm pretty sure that it involves developing a system to be a successful club. That involves winning games on the football side of the house and bringing in $ for HBG on the other side of it. Richo's success will be tied to the success of the football team as the corporate $ won't come in if we continue to languish at the bottom of the ladder.
Richo has already come out and said that we are where he expected us to be given the roster we have. We have a simple game plan that isn't being executed - is that on the coach or the players?
Using the Dogs as a comparision is not about trying to compare rosters, coaching styles or the difference between the way things are done. What it does demonstrate is:
- Dogs performance was on par with ours.
- Dogs sign a proven administrator in Gus - we sign a proven administrator but later in the timeline.
- Dogs signed a bunch of quality players and a new (but experienced coach) but performance does not improve - we sign Api, Papalii, Klemmer, unearth Bula, sign Olam and appoint Benji - no change.
- Dogs have heaps of internal dramas as culture is addressed; fans and the media label Ciraldo as a dud and want him sacked - Tigers fans and media call for Benjis head.
- Dogs sign a bunch of fringe FG quality players from other clubs and add a couple of top tier players - currently sitting in the top eight. Tigers make it clear they are going to offload a buch of deadwood and embark on a mid year recruiting raid of the UK. Tigers sign a marquee half and a quality centre/wing.
While the clubs do things differently it is clear that they are taking the same steps towards improvement. So I would argue that the comparison is both credible and meaningful. Is winning this year importaint? Probably not. Is setting the conditions for success important - you can bet your arse it is. I trust that you can see the similarities.