It is quite reasonable for the Tigers to renew Hardwick's contract before next season. He has coached them to three consecutive finals series and taken the club from a hopeless position in 2009 to respectability. He has presided over a difficult rebuild, completed during compromised drafts and shown he is a composed and capable coach.

But his performance doesn't warrant a two-year extension. This would be, in effect, a three year term - the standard for Labor prime ministers. A one-year extension would mean Hardwick has two years in which to make the club a contender. By the end of 2017, he would have coached the Tigers for eight years - long enough to be have this team winning finals and probably within the top four.

Should Hardwick fail to take the Tigers beyond the elimination final over the next two years, then - barring the usual injury disclaimers - he should be moved on. Richmond's wish for "stability" has its limits. Coaches, in any case, often perform better when on a short leash.

Mark Thompson was nearly sacked by Geelong in 2006 and went into the 2007 season without a contract beyond that year. Geelong, which changed the environment and support around 'Bomber', won the flag and became a serial winner.

Alastair Clarkson, who had coached the Hawks to a premiership in 2008 and to a narrow preliminary final loss in 2011, was also coming out of contract during 2012. This lack of security did the coach - and Hawthorn - no harm.

As Michael Gleeson reported, Richmond president Peggy O'Neal has indicated that the board will consider a proposal from the executive - led by chief executive Brendon Gale - on a potential extension for Hardwick early next year.

"We think he's done a great job," said O'Neal, citing the improvement of the Tigers on Hardwick's watch.

What Hardwick has done, though, is less important than where he is taking the Tigers. If they renew his contract and then fail to win a final - the measure of progress in 2016 - then a contract extension of more than one year will actually be the source of the kind of instability and unrest that the Richmond administration is so desperate to avoid.

It is also possible that Richmond could announce a two year extension for Hardwick, when in reality he has signed a conditional contract for one year with a "trigger" clause for a second year tied to ladder position. This is certainly a viable option, but if the Tigers choose this path then they must a) ensure that there is no pay out whatsoever in the second year if Hardwick doesn't meet the relevant KPI, and b) be relatively transparent about this arrangement with the fans.

The millions wasted on termination payments to senior coaches in recent years has been scandalous. Too often these pay-outs have been for coaches who were re-contracted.

Clearly, Gale-force Richmond is haunted by the ghosts of Richmond's cannibalistic past. It is a fear that is understandable, but not supported by the record of the past decade, when the Tigers have been one of the most stable and staid clubs in the AFL. They have had three coaches in the last 15 years, despite moderate results, and no board election for six years.

They've had less turnover of assistant coaches than most clubs in Hardwick's time, and haven't traded any name players. As a club that started near the bottom, in a weak position, and has steadily improved with a young list, it has largely avoided the harsh calls.

Richmond doesn't have to make a tough decision on Hardwick yet. They need a smart call. To hand him two extra years, without get-out clauses, would be unwise.