Who cares really, one plyer has a few too many to drink on mad monday, another player falls over trying to help him. i mean most of our supporters are tools unfortunetly. Some people really need to get a life! its no suprise it was carrol and miller, there the only two to show some fight on the ground!!!

Was bruce hiding in the corner?

Post loses all credibility instantly.

Then we lose 'child support'. Our young guns need people to look up to in a football sense.

Do you really want those people to include Nathan Carroll?

Do you really want those people to include Nathan Carroll?

Just want some players, eg, Miller, McLean, and I'm finding few others to add some grunt onfield.

Please name others for me so I can get off Carroll.

Bye Bye Chop.

Just want some players, eg, Miller, McLean, and I'm finding few others to add some grunt onfield.

Please name others for me so I can get off Carroll.

Nathan Carroll would be the very last footballer I would want young players looking up.

I am not sure what you value in Carroll but if he adds "grunt" on the field then MFC doesnt need him.

He is a spud and we should look to more mature (football wise) and more skillful players who actually add some real grunt and contest on the field.

Nathan Carroll would be the very last footballer I would want young players looking up.

I am not sure what you value in Carroll but if he adds "grunt" on the field then MFC doesnt need him.

He is a spud and we should look to more mature (football wise) and more skillful players who actually add some real grunt and contest on the field.

I didn't say anything about young players looking up to him. It's more about having players with some physical presence on the field, not easily brushed aside.

After Miller, Mclean and Carroll, I can't find any. That's all I'm saying.

Just gotta love those ego pumping posts ( I know it all ).

Except in Deelicious9's case, he most likely does know.

Except in Deelicious9's case, he most likely does know.

And why is that?

Btw, it still doesn't make the post any less irritating.

I didn't say anything about young players looking up to him. It's more about having players with some physical presence on the field, not easily brushed aside.

After Miller, Mclean and Carroll, I can't find any. That's all I'm saying.

Carroll does not have any presence. Despite all the posing and bad haircuts, he is terrible with the one on one and is a more often not a goose when tempers flare. He gives us nothing on the ground.

BTW, Miller does not have it either.

Physical presence is best served by winning contested ball more times than not and using it effectively. Otherwise you overrate the "tough guy" stereotype. Only McLean comes close to my definition.

I just think he has some grunt on the footy field.

Is it his looks that make you think he has "grunt?" Or his football?

IMO if Carroll has grunt, Fevola is a class act on and off the field.

Carroll does not have any presence. Despite all the posing and bad haircuts, he is terrible with the one on one and is a more often not a goose when tempers flare. He gives us nothing on the ground.

BTW, Miller does not have it either.

Physical presence is best served by winning contested ball more times than not and using it effectively. Otherwise you overrate the "tough guy" stereotype. Only McLean comes close to my definition.

Is it his looks that make you think he has "grunt?" Or his football?

IMO if Carroll has grunt, Fevola is a class act on and off the field.

I thought his footy was ok in 2006-7. I couldn't give a rats how he looks.

I will say this one more time; I don't want to pay out his 2009 contract. Again, I did not donate money to have if payed out for FA.

Now back to 'presence', which in my stupidity I called 'grunt';

You guys have different interpretation than me when it comes to 'presence on the field'. Obviously footy ability and possession is part of it.

Then there is the strong and courageous side, which is take no backward step or be intimidated, which is pretty key to raising the team to consistent winning.

You guys have different interpretation than me when it comes to 'presence on the field'. Obviously footy ability and possession is part of it.

Then there is the strong and courageous side, which is take no backward step or be intimidated, which is pretty key to raising the team to consistent winning.

Unless you are winning the contested ball then you can huff and puff all you like because it means diddlysquat.

Carroll intimidates no one on the ground because oppositions (1) know he is a peanut, (2) they know his decision making is suspect and (3) they know he will do something stupid when push comes to shove.

MFC young players need leadership and good example on the ground not the antics of a player whose on and off field behaviour aligns to the LCD.

Like I said you overrate it and you do so at the expense of things that really count if you want to be consistently winning.

I will say this one more time; I don't want to pay out his 2009 contract. Again, I did not donate money to have if payed out for FA.

Now back to 'presence', which in my stupidity I called 'grunt';

can you explain to me why you don't want to pay out his contract? we will pay him the same amount next year whether he plays or not. the only extra money we'll pay is the cost of a draftee (what $35K?). and not only will we have further our cause of pushing forward with youth, but we will also have removed a player from our list who's poor behaviour and poor on and off field examples have continually demonstrated how poor his character really is. if you want to improve the culture of the mfc, getting rid of carroll is a great first move.

Unless you are winning the contested ball then you can huff and puff all you like because it means diddlysquat.

This was never argued by me.

Carroll intimidates no one on the ground because oppositions (1) know he is a peanut, (2) they know his decision making is suspect and (3) they know he will do something stupid when push comes to shove.

I did not say he intimidates. My view is he is not intimidated

MFC young players need leadership and good example on the ground not the antics of a player whose on and off field behaviour aligns to the LCD.

Not disputed by me, but I don't think his on-field behaviour is particularly bad..

Like I said you overrate it and you do so at the expense of things that really count if you want to be consistently winning.

What did I overrate? And at the expense of what?

can you explain to me why you don't want to pay out his contract? we will pay him the same amount next year whether he plays or not. the only extra money we'll pay is the cost of a draftee (what $35K?). and not only will we have further our cause of pushing forward with youth, but we will also have removed a player from our list who's poor behaviour and poor on and off field examples have continually demonstrated how poor his character really is. if you want to improve the culture of the mfc, getting rid of carroll is a great first move.

Because if you delist you don't get the use of an experienced player but you pay for it.

I understand the argument for clearing a list spot and pushing forward new youth at the cheap incremental cost of $35k, however this may cause me to think twice prior to donating next time - this is something I want to think more about.

But thanks, deanox, at least you found the core of my argument.

dees dayz

i respect the fact that u donated

however, i also donated (be it a smaller amount)

and i would not be upset if we payed out carrols contract

IN FACT, i would not even be upset if we didnt replace him with another player

he is not providing leadership, he is not a good footballer, he is in the news for bad press more than good

and he is not going to be part of our future so i would rather we put time and effort into other players

to add to this, he could get injured and the club would have to pay for his injury fixerupering

for all i care, id be happier if my donated money got rid of the bloke

so we can get rid of that mediocre culture and for once, strive to be the absolute best

Because if you delist you don't get the use of an experienced player but you pay for it.

Im not sure if this necessarily follows..It only makes sense if we were 1)going to use Carroll..and 2) value his experience.

I cant see either applying. He is really just a list clogger now. Id go with Deanox and pay him out.. and use his place to develop another. This maye be worthwhile experience..as opposed to Chop's .

just a view

Not that I'm saying we shouldn't get rid of him, but how much do you actually pay for a Rookie?

I thought it was more around the $50,000 region, and more once they started playing.

Would be interested if anyone knows

Not that I'm saying we shouldn't get rid of him, but how much do you actually pay for a Rookie?

I thought it was more around the $50,000 region, and more once they started playing.

Would be interested if anyone knows

In 2009, $33,200 plus allowances.

If you really want to impress your friends see here:

http://aflpa.com.au/sites/all/files/AFLPA_..._2011_FINAL.pdf

Thanks mate, i'll now be the coolest kid on the block

Then there is the strong and courageous side, which is take no backward step or be intimidated, which is pretty key to raising the team to consistent winning.

When fundamental aspects are missing in his game, his "presence" is as useful as brass ashtrays in a non smoker's car.

can you explain to me why you don't want to pay out his contract? we will pay him the same amount next year whether he plays or not. the only extra money we'll pay is the cost of a draftee (what $35K?). and not only will we have further our cause of pushing forward with youth, but we will also have removed a player from our list who's poor behaviour and poor on and off field examples have continually demonstrated how poor his character really is. if you want to improve the culture of the mfc, getting rid of carroll is a great first move.

Correct, well said. ($33,200 - draftee).

What money is Carroll on as a matter of interest? Over a Demonology they have the view he's on huge money.

Because if you delist you don't get the use of an experienced player but you pay for it.

I understand the argument for clearing a list spot and pushing forward new youth at the cheap incremental cost of $35k, however this may cause me to think twice prior to donating next time - this is something I want to think more about.

But thanks, deanox, at least you found the core of my argument.

how many games did carroll play this year? he played the first 7, and then only 2 more for the year. that indicates that DB does not consider carroll a long term part of this team. With players like garland, martin, frawley, rivers, warnock and young tom mcnamara floating around on the list, why do we need carroll as extra back up? he shouldn't be getting a game, unless we are in a complete hole and mess with injuries, and if thats the case he is no use to us anyway. he has continually showed that he is a poor role model for these players off the field, and is not a quality player on the field. so what benefit would he bring to us? we wont be using the experienced player, and in fact our aim is to go forward with youth...

What money is Carroll on as a matter of interest? Over a Demonology they have the view he's on huge money.

Not sure exactly what it would be but his contract was last renewed after his best year in 2006, where he was considered an outside chance of AA, so it would be reasonably high.

Wish they would just bite the bullet and fire the gun

IMO he isnt in our best 22 so what a waste of time keeping him

Its a no brainer to me