If there was open and shut case for terminating this contract seamlessly then dont you think the Club would have done it by now?

Beg to differ. AFL player contracts are pretty much standard these days and require players to uphold certain standards of conduct and behaviour. It's not a question of whether the club has a case against Carroll but more a question of the politics surrounding the matter. Nobody wants this to erupt into a costly legal proceeding, least of all the AFL which holds the key in respect to such matters as what happens with regard to Melbourne's TPP is Carroll is terminated. It's a minefield and the club has to navigate it carefully.

The main thing is that in the end Carroll will not be at the MFC in 2009.

Beg to differ. AFL player contracts are pretty much standard these days and require players to uphold certain standards of conduct and behaviour. It's not a question of whether the club has a case against Carroll but more a question of the politics surrounding the matter. Nobody wants this to erupt into a costly legal proceeding, least of all the AFL which holds the key in respect to such matters as what happens with regard to Melbourne's TPP is Carroll is terminated. It's a minefield and the club has to navigate it carefully.

The main thing is that in the end Carroll will not be at the MFC in 2009.

Looks like you are singing from the same sheet I was.

And by the way have an "arguable case" is akin to opening the floodgates for expensive lawyers and more bad publicity.

This issue needs to be treated carefully and managed sensitively to avoid unncessary fall out on the Club.

And Carroll wont be back at MFC.

Worst case scenario: Carroll doesn't pull on a MFC jumper ever again and we pay out his contract

Best case scenario: Carroll doesn't pull on a MFC jumper ever again and we pay out his contract

ok, it would be nice to not have to include his salary next year but our real gain will be not having him anywhere near the club, we really need to instigate a 'no [censored]' policy.

Looks like you are singing from the same sheet I was.

Nah, not singing and not from the same sheet when it comes to the issue of breach of contract and, assuming what I've heard is true and correct, I'd back the football club on this one if it got to court (which it won't because, as Deeman pointed out, that option enriches only the lawyers and would not benefit either party).

The conclusion therefore, is always going to be the same whichever way you look at it - it's not in the interests of either the MFC, Carroll, the AFL or the AFLPA that the contract remains on foot.

In the end, all that matters is the size of the pay out cheque.

There are simply two aspects to any win by the MFC in all this.. 1) Carroll is gone 2) The cost of Carroll to the MFc in 09 is reduced.

Both are good for us. Chop may get a run with the Saints or he may pull on a jumper for Upper Kumbucta West !! I really couldnt give a hoot.

Melbourne just need to remain cool, stand their groud and have pens and paper at the ready, that and have a cab ready to get the guy away from us as quick as possible

Wouldn't a third include whether we can place a youngster from the draft in his place?

Melbourne just need to remain cool, stand their groud and have pens and paper at the ready, that and have a cab ready to get the guy away from us as quick as possible

And keep our fingers crossed that before he gets in the cab, he doesn't knock the crap out of any former teammates or racially vilify any innocent bystanders.

Wouldn't a third include whether we can place a youngster from the draft in his place?

As I understand it ( again..correct me where I"m wrong..lol ) Our list must be lodged by end of business next friday.

If Nathan is off our books by then then we CAN put another kid on....thats the whole point of this exercise really

So really, you'd have to think this saga will be over within the next week.

If we're not going to play him next year even if he's on our list, we'll be paying his salary anyway.

If we cut him, we'll have to pay his salary but get a look at another young kid.

I'd back the football club on this one if it got to court (which it won't because, as Deeman pointed out, that option enriches only the lawyers and would not benefit either party).

Hey steady on there.

Hey steady on there.

Sorry, I know how it must hurt.

Hey steady on there.

A lawyer died and arrived at the pearly gates. To his dismay, there were thousands of people ahead of him in line to see St. Peter. But, to his surprise, St. Peter left his desk at the gate and came down the long line to where the lawyer was standing. St. Peter greeted him warmly. Then St. Peter and one of his assistants took the lawyer by the hands and guided him up to the front of the line into a comfortable chair by his desk.

The lawyer said, "I don't mind all this attention, but what makes me so special?"

St. Peter replied, "Well, I've added up all the hours for which you billed your clients, and by my calculation you must be about 150 years old!"

hahahaha

St Kilda is fast becoming a dumping ground for every deadshit reject.

Yes, they're window must be closing, they're clutching at straws..

Melbourne just need to remain cool, stand their groud and have pens and paper at the ready, that and have a cab ready to get the guy away from us as quick as possible

The user can pay for the cab too.

Wouldn't a third include whether we can place a youngster from the draft in his place?

That and along with a reduced payout for Carroll would be a reasonable outcome for the Dees.

The user can pay for the cab too.

I'd be happy for us to pay the fare

Does anyone know the go with Carroll now that he's still on our list?

Does anyone know the go with Carroll now that he's still on our list?

No official announcement yet. My guess is that they have no fu&%ing idea themselves.

Out of curiosity, what would you do?

I have no idea myself.

Personally I don't know what our options now.

I.e. I don't know if we can boot him and still replace him on our list etc.

If we could replace him, I'd happily pay him out to get another youngster into the Red and Blue. If not, then let him rot in the Casey Seconds.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, just feeling angry at the lack of any loyalty in the game. I want my club to have respect again, but we'll get there.

Being heavy handed with a player like Nathan Carroll could help with that, If I was coach I would not tolerate a person who was so detrimental to my club's culture.

well lets survey what we DO know.

We can take it he WONT again be donning a Melbourne jumper any lifetime soon. We know he STILL is on our list..as he hasnt appeared "delisted" I can only summise he will be paid off with an agreed settlement and we probably wont be able to add to our list at this moment in his place. Im not sure ( as is everyone else ) where the League stands on replacing the void as its never happened before.

Best case is he's gone..and we havent paid a full years money to do so.. and so on to 09

Still this IS the AFL we're discussing here so who knows

I think the point is, that any action against, and thus payout to Carroll before today, Oct 31, goes into 08 payments, and would see us breach the S Cap.

From Nov 1, I think, any payout goes under the 09 Cap.

So I guess we can expect more action re Carroll from tomorrow onwards.

I'm against him going to St Kilda particularly if they don't pay any of his salary and/or we can't replace him with a kid due to AFL ruling. Why should they reap the benefits (if he gets a game) while we get shafted again.

I'm against him going to St Kilda particularly if they don't pay any of his salary and/or we can't replace him with a kid due to AFL ruling.

Then there would be no point in doing it. I'm with you. Just tell him not to be around the Club and we pay his contract out.

I'm against him going to St Kilda particularly if they don't pay any of his salary and/or we can't replace him with a kid due to AFL ruling. Why should they reap the benefits (if he gets a game) while we get shafted again.

You're the ones trying to get rid of him though.

You're missing the point Eastie.

I think BBP is saying that if we can't replace him with anyone on our list, why give him to another club so they can use him for their services while we pick up the tab

Then there would be no point in doing it. I'm with you. Just tell him not to be around the Club and we pay his contract out.

Worst case: just put him in Casey 2's (or no where), and pay his contract week by week. If he has any pride, he will negotiate a (reduced) payout.