That's fair, but if we take it that Sylvia is not the only player who sympathised with CJ's decision, then the coach spraying him infront of the group is hardly going to build any unity, if anything its going to drive a wedge futher between the coach and the players that sympathise with CJ.

I reckon with both Carroll on CJ we've got what we deserved for not trading them during trade week. Carroll was on the outs by that stage, and CJ hadn't re-signed and from the newspaper reports a few weeks ago his management was shopping him around to a few clubs as he was out of contract.

If its true that CJ was being made the scapegoat (and lets be honest, how was CJ of all people the scapegoat for the crap we put up with in 08?), then I don't blame him for wanting to leave, and I don't blame Carlton for wanting to get him on board..

Well it seems to depend on who you actually want to believe.......

The club who say that he was offered a contract with some of what he wanted, or at least what they were willing to give him at this stage of his career and with his standard, and that it was CJ who refused to sign it and therefore pushed the whole saga to the "last minute" and therefore he is going elsewhere.

Or Alan Johnson who says that his son was "scapegoated" (for what I am not sure) and it was the club that would not commit to any contract, or without giving the player what he desired until CJ had had enough and therefore took his career into his own hands and looked for other prospects.

I don't think any of us have any idea what the truth is here, not completely, and we probably never will given it seems to have become a "he said v he said", & while I am a sympathiser for any player who feels they can do better elsewhere, there is definitely something icky about the way this one went down.

As for the confrontation on the field, well I understand what Mos Def is saying about potentially creating friction between Bailey and the possibility of some CJ-sympathetic former team mates, but that is not really and should never be an issue. Bailey wants them to want to play for Melbourne, have loyalty and respect for this club, and for what the club has done for them, and what they will do for it. If he sees someone maligning that for money then that is never going to sit well.

And the thing that bites me here is that while Johnson had a good year, by far his best, he still has a long way to go before he gets to throw is weight around. If there were playing provisos in his contract that he didn't like then toughen up because this club has stood by you in lean years, and while yes they can trade you out or delist you, it doesn't mean they will because it is up to the player to put the performances on the field to justify his place and therefore his future.

I don't think this happened with CJ, and that is disappointing for any player, but especially one who comes from a Demon-centric family like he does.

Just my opinion !!!

Perspective, my a#rse!!! A player of CJ's standing in the game could easily be delisted by the club 12 months down the track. If he was offered more money and better terms at another club, of course he should take it.

Any comparison with Brock McLean is ridiculous. One has guaranteed employment in footy for the next 8-10 years, whilst the other could have been out of AFL footy in 12 months.

I thought there were no guarantees in football particularly for players when they get injuried/lose form etc. No one is guaranteed an 8 to 10 year career and not necessarily at the same Club. Puts Brock's act of generousity in perspective.

I certainly dont begrudge CJ from going to market. However, I certainly dont begrudge the Club that put five years into him and a coach that gave him a fair go feeling let down by him.

First, we were not offered anything for either player during trade week.

Second, CJ was not a scapegoat. He actually had his best year for us playing about 10-11 games before being injured.

Absolutely correct.

They are so vile that despite offering him a fair amount more money than we could they weren't prepared to offer us anything reasonable in exchange. Steal him is their method.

That's what irks me as well. They rate him highly enough to give him two years with better pay, but not highly enough to give away anything for him.

eg) if you worked for Microsoft and you were proud and passionate, but you felt that they hadnt treated you very well in your four years there and you didnt think that your talents were fully utilised

then suddenly, apple come along promising a better deal and more money; you woud probably happilly move.

Nugget, your example pretty much sums up to me the way CJ plays his footy

First, we were not offered anything for either player during trade week.

Second, CJ was not a scapegoat. He actually had his best year for us playing about 10-11 games before being injured.

Absolutely Redleg.

oh well, he will get a nice welcome from our supporters and the boys when IF he plays against us next year :D

JUDAS

The thing I find hard to take is that he has had four years of resource invested in him. e.g. Jeff White ensured that Fremantle were compensated when he left.

But then again perhaps that indicates that he is not rated all that highly. Carlton are no certainty to get him and don't seem too concerned one way or the other.

I can't believe so many of you are focusing on the CJ part of that article. I don't think the guy deserves the attention. To me, anyone who doesn't want to be at this club is the enemy. He is scum.

That article highlights Bailey's determination to the club, not CJ's inability to resign and be faithful to the club that gave him a chance.

I can't believe so many of you are focusing on the CJ part of that article. I don't think the guy deserves the attention. To me, anyone who doesn't want to be at this club is the enemy. He is scum.

That article highlights Bailey's determination to the club, not CJ's inability to resign and be faithful to the club that gave him a chance.

CJ's decision to walk out is just the reality of the business nature of modern day football. Loyalty is a 2 way street and clubs will cut players at a moments notice. These days you have to look after "number one".

In any event, if Carltank are serious about a tilt at the finals in 2009, in my opinion they are taking a backward step if they think that CJ will add true value to that objective. He was just OK at the Dees and was never going to be a star. In any event, there is no guarantee he will be drafted by anybody.

What is more worrying to me about Caro's article is that there seems to be an underlying theme at the moment, that quality people see being associated with the Dees as not a good career move.

We need to turn that perception around very quickly...........and yes I know, winning games will go some way to doing that, but the realities of the market place suggest that will be a long and very hard road

First, we were not offered anything for either player during trade week.

Second, CJ was not a scapegoat. He actually had his best year for us playing about 10-11 games before being injured.

Carlton have stated they made an offer for CJ during trade week (albeit a low-balled one, at least it's a starting point), and in any case, if you've got a player out of contract who is um-ing and ah-ing about re-signing (eg Ryan O'Keefe), you're playing russian roulette by not trading them. Sydney played that game with O'Keefe because they knew he would be unlikely to go into the PSD, with so many clubs having picks ahead of the two he had expressed interest in going to. I'm playing devils advocate here, but I don't feel we have that much right to complain about a guy walking away from the club when he hadn't re-signed and his management had been shopping him around with the clubs knowledge for a month before trade week.

And I agree, I thought CJ showed some really good signs in 2008, the scapegoat line came from Alan Johnson (in Caro's article), but the whispers about CJ bearing the brunt of some public lashings from Bailey have been around for a while.

The buzzwords here are respect for the club and loyalty, well, it's a two way street. From the outside looking in it appears to be that there's a young player feeling disrespected or victimised by the coach, and he's out of contract and another club with a brighter future is offering him more money to jump ship.

Would I hope that any player, especially a father-son, would knock back that offer, I'm not surprised and don't blame him for jumping at the opportunity. From the sounds of it neither does Colin Sylvia..

Carlton have stated they made an offer for CJ during trade week (albeit a low-balled one, at least it's a starting point), and in any case, if you've got a player out of contract who is um-ing and ah-ing about re-signing (eg Ryan O'Keefe), you're playing russian roulette by not trading them. Sydney played that game with O'Keefe because they knew he would be unlikely to go into the PSD, with so many clubs having picks ahead of the two he had expressed interest in going to. I'm playing devils advocate here, but I don't feel we have that much right to complain about a guy walking away from the club when he hadn't re-signed and his management had been shopping him around with the clubs knowledge for a month before trade week.

They offered pick 100! Hardly worth considering and CJ would've had more right to be insulted by it.

Funny for "scapegoating" because he got more opportunity with Bailey than he did with ND or Riley.

Funny for "scapegoating" because he got more opportunity with Bailey than he did with ND or Riley.

Not sure if it's already been posted here but I believe CJ was [censored] because he felt he was good to go for the last couple of games but Bailey decided to play others instead, ie Yze, White etc.

This info may not be reliable (3rd or 4th hand) but it fits in with some of the comments made by Bailey, CJ and AJ in the papers recently.

Of course if it is true then it reflects incredibly poorly on the kid, as already mentioned he received a much better go this year than previous seasons, but most importantly a couple of spots had to give way for our retiring greats, sometimes respect has to be given to the club from the player as well as the other way around.

It seems that CJ had already decided that he'd had enough, pretty poor way to go out really, and coming from me it says alot because I was a fan of the kid.

Not sure if it's already been posted here but I believe CJ was [censored] because he felt he was good to go for the last couple of games but Bailey decided to play others instead, ie Yze, White etc.

This info may not be reliable (3rd or 4th hand) but it fits in with some of the comments made by Bailey, CJ and AJ in the papers recently.

Of course if it is true then it reflects incredibly poorly on the kid, as already mentioned he received a much better go this year than previous seasons, but most importantly a couple of spots had to give way for our retiring greats, sometimes respect has to be given to the club from the player as well as the other way around.

It seems that CJ had already decided that he'd had enough, pretty poor way to go out really, and coming from me it says alot because I was a fan of the kid.

Good post. He'd had enough, and walked. I agree. Pretty poor given the club had drafted him and given him a great opportunity. Another kid will be given the same opportunity in less than 2 weeks.

oh well, he will get a nice welcome from our supporters and the boys when IF he plays against us next year :D

JUDAS

Will that game be at Casey or Northan Bullants??

Another kid will be given the same opportunity in less than 2 weeks.

That is the positive in this story.

The buzzwords here are respect for the club and loyalty, well, it's a two way street. From the outside looking in it appears to be that there's a young player feeling disrespected or victimised by the coach, and he's out of contract and another club with a brighter future is offering him more money to jump ship.

Whist disappointed that Chris chose to leave the MFC, i am understanding.

Chris was willing to sign a contract all year and the MFC put off offering him a contract until after trade week. When there was no substantial offer for Chris during trade week, the mfc came groveling back to Chris and offered him a one year contract.

Where is the loyalty to Chris from the mfc?

So, whilst the MFC were shopping round Chris, Chris' management were willing to 'test the market' and see whether their client was going to get a better offer. Chris received an offer for 2 years from Carlton, as opposed to a one year offer from MFC.

Players don't get an infinite number of opportunities to play AFL, so when you are blessed with one, you should closely consider it. Chris has chosen what's best for his own career, and i think it is disgraceful that we can admonish him for that.

We must acknowledge that football is, first and foremost, a business. The MFC were willing to get rid of Chris for a price that would benefit the MFC, whilst Chris has been willing to leave the MFC for a price that would benefit Chris.

Whist disappointed that Chris chose to leave the MFC, i am understanding.

Chris was willing to sign a contract all year and the MFC put off offering him a contract until after trade week. When there was no substantial offer for Chris during trade week, the mfc came groveling back to Chris and offered him a one year contract.

Where is the loyalty to Chris from the mfc?

So, whilst the MFC were shopping round Chris, Chris' management were willing to 'test the market' and see whether their client was going to get a better offer. Chris received an offer for 2 years from Carlton, as opposed to a one year offer from MFC.

Players don't get an infinite number of opportunities to play AFL, so when you are blessed with one, you should closely consider it. Chris has chosen what's best for his own career, and i think it is disgraceful that we can admonish him for that.

We must acknowledge that football is, first and foremost, a business. The MFC were willing to get rid of Chris for a price that would benefit the MFC, whilst Chris has been willing to leave the MFC for a price that would benefit Chris.

We offered him a two year deal

They offered pick 100! Hardly worth considering and CJ would've had more right to be insulted by it.

Funny for "scapegoating" because he got more opportunity with Bailey than he did with ND or Riley.

I think you'll find they offered something in the 70s/80s, but anyway, I agree, it was far below what he was worth, in a year where no one was being traded for high picks because of GC and WS.

As for scapegoating, if the rumour mill is right and CJ copped some vicious serves after some of his better performances, then it appears he was indeed a scapegoat. Guys can play 22 games a year and still be a scapegoat for what is wrong according to a coach.

FWIW... i'm with chooker... we offered him a two year deal at a reduced rate despite him showing the best signs of his career since joining us at the end of 2003. I don't think we have a lot to complain about.. that's the risk you play when you don't re-sign a bloke you want before trade week...

As for scapegoating, if the rumour mill is right and CJ copped some vicious serves after some of his better performances, then it appears he was indeed a scapegoat. Guys can play 22 games a year and still be a scapegoat for what is wrong according to a coach.

On that topic... in those games he got a lot of the ball, but didn't do terribly much with it.

Afterwards when I watched the Brisbane game again, I kinda felt it was more a case of us winning by a small margin because we purely managed to keep it out of their hands by stuffing around with the footy for long enough. CJ didn't use the ball particularly well in that game, or other games where he got a lot of touches. Its possible (likely in my opinion) that he wasn't following team rules.

That'd get him a deserved bake, I can imagine.

I think you'll find they offered something in the 70s/80s, but anyway, I agree, it was far below what he was worth, in a year where no one was being traded for high picks because of GC and WS.

No i think you will find it was a pick over 100, Bailey confirmed it.

No i think you will find it was a pick over 100, Bailey confirmed it.

It was offered purely as an insult to the Mfc. :angry: It was pick 104 to be precise.

It was offered purely as an insult to the Mfc. :angry: It was pick 104 to be precise.

My anger is with Carltank not CJ. They are scum. They offer our developing player a fair whack of cash and offer his club nothing in return. They prefer to steal a player rather than trade for him. As I have said earlier we join a list of clubs including West Coast, Freo and Port who are waiting for the chance to pay them back. That day will come.

I also believe players are entitled to get the best for themselves especially in these times where they are traded on a whim.

It was offered purely as an insult to the Mfc. :angry: It was pick 104 to be precise.

That is ridiculous if true. A real slap in the face. They had picks 65, 80 and 85 to offer. Shifty VISY associates...

That is ridiculous if true. A real slap in the face. They had picks 65, 80 and 85 to offer. Shifty VISY associates...

That's because they didn't want to trade a draft pick for him, they just wanted to pick him up for free in the PSD.

But be realistic, that's exactly what we were hoping to do with Warnock.

I hate Carlton, but not for that. They just played a better game.

That's because they didn't want to trade a draft pick for him, they just wanted to pick him up for free in the PSD.

But be realistic, that's exactly what we were hoping to do with Warnock.

I hate Carlton, but not for that. They just played a better game.

Wait. No, i DO hate them for that.

B@st@rds.