Cameron Bruce (ouch)

[jabberwocky 2,301]

People can try and judge the ethics of Bruce and the Club in this instance but without all of the facts it is complete folly.

Even with the facts there would be mitigating factors for both sides making it difficult to pass a moral judgement.

All I know is that Cameron Bruce is a Hawthorn player and I support the Melbourne Football Club.

I will also support the club in the management of it's list, it has an excellent recent track record.

[e25 5]

Personally I think we have enough facts.

Bruce and his new coach have shown his hand.

I quite the fact the club has sat back, maintained some dignity, and let Bruce make a fool of himself.

It's a bit like Mark Thompson at the bombers.

Be honest about it or just shut up.

He has exposed himself, slung mud, and now Ablett has let the genie out.

[Choko 493]

I do have a funny Cameron Bruce story, which I think I can tell now that he's gone!

The MFC was training at the MCG one day when the Ponsford was being renovated. It was a freezing cold wet winter's day. There were lots of workers standing around watching the boys train.

Cam was taking a shot at goal from 45, and some poor unsuspecting worker copped his helicopter smack in his glasses. The glasses fractured, and the bloke had to go to hospital.

Cam made the point that the guy wasn't expecting it.... I responded to the whole table with "That's probably because he was standing behind the goals"! I have to say, he took it extremely well!

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Personally I think we have enough facts.

Bruce and his new coach have shown his hand.

I quite the fact the club has sat back, maintained some dignity, and let Bruce make a fool of himself.

It's a bit like Mark Thompson at the bombers.

Be honest about it or just shut up.

He has exposed himself, slung mud, and now Ablett has let the genie out.

Depends on your definition of "facts".

Bruce wanted to go to Hawthorn, whatever his reasoning.

Bailey said he wanted to keep him, maybe he did.

He said the same about Chris Johnson and Brock, maybe he really wanted to keep them too. The only thing we do know about these departures is that none of these players now play for Melbourne, either by the clubs design, the player's design or more likely a combimation of factors involving both parties.

I wish no ill against any person and I hope that Brock, CJ and Cam Bruce have long and fulfilled lives, but as far as their football careers go I couldn't give a stuff.

[Guest Baghdad Bob]

There seem to be a few key points you are missing here Bob,

Sorry, I can't be bothered reading the whole thread. Anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't active in his move is silly and this would have started well before seasons end. Anyone who places too much emphasis on press comments is naive, they are there to project the best image. Anyone who thinks we couldn't have kept Bruce is ignoring the fact we could have offered more money and a longer contracts and the captaincy. In those circumstances Bruce would have stayed. And anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't a good player doesn't understand footy (note the use of the word "good"). Anyone who doesn't fondly remember his contribution to our club is very mean of spirit.

I'm glad he's gone - win win.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Sorry, I can't be bothered reading the whole thread. Anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't active in his move is silly and this would have started well before seasons end. Anyone who places too much emphasis on press comments is naive, they are there to project the best image. Anyone who thinks we couldn't have kept Bruce is ignoring the fact we could have offered more money and a longer contracts and the captaincy. In those circumstances Bruce would have stayed. And anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't a good player doesn't understand footy (note the use of the word "good"). Anyone who doesn't fondly remember his contribution to our club is very mean of spirit.

I'm glad he's gone - win win.

Thank you.

And Welcome.

[rpfc 27,570]

I've not bothered to read all 10 pages about Bruce but this statement sprung out at me as being a little naive.

Bruce probably left because he was [censored] at Melbourne for being asked to take a large pay cut, the treatment of McDonald, the prospect of getting longer than a one year contract and the icing on the cake was he now is with a team with a greater premiership chance than Melbourne in the short term. There are probably other reasons as well which could revolve around leadership, relationships with staff and players and the desire to "freshen" his football.

People don't leave for "one" reason, life is so much more complicated than that.

In an earlier post Bobby highlights Bruce's achievements and they are significant. He is a highly skilled player with a rare ability to keep his feet and win one on one contests. He's smart. He's not "brave" and doesn't play "tough" footy, but he is nevertheless a very good footballer. I think he was a bit unfortunate in that the game moved away from him in terms of rotations and interchanges and how they are now used. One of Bruce's great strengths was his running ability which made him highly dangerous in the latter part of matches. No so now with the changes.

He was very good for us, very very well paid by all accounts and is now playing for another club. Probably a win win in the longer term so why so much discussion?

I suggest you read the thread, or maybe the last 4 pages.

We have run through all the arguments, and while I know that things don't happen because of one causal instrument - the facts lead me to believe Cameron wanted success in his final couple of years.

That was his overriding desire as would have gotten two years (because of the VL opening), more money, and a legacy at the Demons. But no flag.

I have quoted him in an earlier post where he says essentially that.

Honestly, just read the thread before calling someone's viewpoint naive.

It's incredibly... yeah, naive...

[Sir Why You Little 34,647]

Are you related to WYL Bobby ?

Easy HT...Bobbies Delusional feelings on the treatment of Cameron Bruce have got Nothing to do with me!!!!

[Red Sox 2]

Sorry, I can't be bothered reading the whole thread. Anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't active in his move is silly and this would have started well before seasons end. Anyone who places too much emphasis on press comments is naive, they are there to project the best image. Anyone who thinks we couldn't have kept Bruce is ignoring the fact we could have offered more money and a longer contracts and the captaincy. In those circumstances Bruce would have stayed. And anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't a good player doesn't understand footy (note the use of the word "good"). Anyone who doesn't fondly remember his contribution to our club is very mean of spirit.

I'm glad he's gone - win win.

You add some decent comment here BB, but your blindly (if anyone this, if anyone that) responding to things you have not read, just guessing?

Like a journalist with very little investigative work done. Your not Ralph from Hun perhaps?

[rpfc 27,570]

Sorry, I can't be bothered reading the whole thread. Anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't active in his move is silly and this would have started well before seasons end. Anyone who places too much emphasis on press comments is naive, they are there to project the best image. Anyone who thinks we couldn't have kept Bruce is ignoring the fact we could have offered more money and a longer contracts and the captaincy. In those circumstances Bruce would have stayed. And anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't a good player doesn't understand footy (note the use of the word "good"). Anyone who doesn't fondly remember his contribution to our club is very mean of spirit.

I'm glad he's gone - win win.

I agree with most of what you say here. Not the win-win thing. We lost a VC for nothing (but we wouldn't have got much so who cares).

And also the 'we could have kept him' argument gives undeserved fire to the argument that Bobby is clinging desperately to.

We couldn't have kept him within reason. Money wouldn't have done it. He's on less. Extra year? Maybe but getting toward irresponsible by the club.

Captaincy? Yes, but irresponsible.

So all things being equal and the club working in a (shock horror) reasonable fashion - we could NOT have kept Cameron Bruce at the club.

Edited December 10, 2010 by rpfc

[nutbean 8,837]

I'll add my 10 cents worth.

I thought Cam Bruce was good over the years with obvious deficiencies.

What I do think is very relevant to this debate is the point being made that "we could have kept him if we wanted to"

I agree with this and I applaud the club. The club wanted to keep Bruce but the club made it clear in the offer ( less money with no second year guarantees) what his actual value was to the club. Bruce's own valuation of himself was was higher than the club's - so be it. This is not being treated with contempt - it is a difference of opinion on value. The waters are now very muddied as he apparently is getting less money and has stated that he has to work hard to get more years from the Hawks as well. And it is now also not clear if he was always going to leave to chase a premiership.

This valuation process will happen with every footballer. MFC don't give 4 year contracts anymore - oh..except in the case of Frawley. Why ? Because it was seen to be for the benefit of the club and footballer. End of story. We place a value on each footballer - some we will have to pay over the odds to keep some and others we will put an offer on the table at the clubs value and say take it or leave it ( as we did in the Cam Bruce case and I do beleive we overpaid on previous contracts but it was in the clubs interest to keep him at that stage). We will also break our no more than 1 year contracts after age 30 when we have a superstar that hits 30. We havent had one in a long time so therefore we havent needed to give a contract longer than that. The club makes decision based on their valuation and how much they want to keep a player - they have not made a mistake with Bruce nor have they treated him with contempt.

Lastly - i wish him no ill will but dont want to wish him success as anything that gives another team an advantage by definition is to the disadvantage of the MFC. I do not want him to make the Hawks stronger as we will be fighting with them and other teams for higher spots on the ladder. ( I have an ex whom i do wish well as i am not in competition with her or her new partner for a premiership !)

[Guest Baghdad Bob]

Honestly, just read the thread before calling someone's viewpoint naive.

It's incredibly... yeah, naive...

Fair point, I actually have read some of the posts but it all becomes chest beating "I'm right and you're wrong" stuff so I stopped. Then I read some more (yeh, I'm a tragic like everyone else here) and just picked up on your comment of "one reason".

Let's face it, nobody really knows why Bruce left and the community bashing of Bobby is pretty silly in the face of that, but the point I was trying to make was that it wasn't for one reason alone.

As you seem so certain that we "couldn't have kept Bruce" can you outline the contract conditions we offered and what Hawthorn offered? I'm not trying to be smart, the simple fact is you can't(and if you could you wouldn't) so you can't make the comment you did.

Bruce left, win win, move on.

[H_T 2,941]

Easy HT...Bobbies Delusional feelings on the treatment of Cameron Bruce have got Nothing to do with me!!!!

Admittedly, it was probably uncalled for. Bobby's argument and side stepping, reminded me of you on the Cricket thread.

[H_T 2,941]

Welcome guys.

[daisycutter 28,630]

Sorry, I can't be bothered reading the whole thread. Anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't active in his move is silly and this would have started well before seasons end. Anyone who places too much emphasis on press comments is naive, they are there to project the best image. Anyone who thinks we couldn't have kept Bruce is ignoring the fact we could have offered more money and a longer contracts and the captaincy. In those circumstances Bruce would have stayed. And anyone who thinks Bruce wasn't a good player doesn't understand footy (note the use of the word "good"). Anyone who doesn't fondly remember his contribution to our club is very mean of spirit.

I'm glad he's gone - win win.

can't argue with any of that Bob.

certainly a good 10,000ft view, but there are many who won't be satisfied until they get the 10ft view, their axe ground and their bull gored.

[beelzebub 22,243]

Something many have seemingly forgotten, sidestepped or otherwise is that Cam for the most part was a product of the Daniher era. The Reverend without argument had his favorites , his core for whom other than irrefutable injury meant an auto start. Cam was one of them. The Bailey era knows no such prejudice. Well certainly looks to be requiring the players to earn their spot. The Bailey team doesnt have/didn't have any particular soft spots come selection .

Cam is without argument fit. But he's not hard. Quite tough but he gets knocked and susceptible to being 'heavied' . Baileys boys( as was indeed his own style) will take no prisoners now. Bruce had to know his time as upper echelon would now be numbered. Hardier more durable bodies coming through. Days are numbered.

Dees premiership window : 2012 /13 onwards - doesn't suit Bruce as realizes he might be injured or no even selected as early as 2012.

Another team , who had shown some positive ( if perplexed) interest is possibly ( in Cams view but not mine) still with window open.

So in this vein Cam and manager start a move out of one camp to the other.

As more unfolds it really is as simple as Bruce, Nixon and Hfc being complicity in huge spin and prefabrication of events and timelines . their stories keep changing regarding tbe why's and how's. On other hand Mfcs version hasn't budged.

So I ask you, who been telling, and still telling porkies.

What respect I ever had for him has gone. Compare his actions to Juniors or Neetas or poignantly to Millers and Bruce is simply shallow. and ungrateful.

I'm sure one day he will rue his decision.

[Range Rover 1,935]

He is a highly skilled player ...

This seems to be the sticking point with me throughout the whole Bruce debate. Was he really? The why did I (and most other Melbourne supporters I'd be standing next to) have the heart in their mouth every time he had the ball in his hands?

I frankly find it odd that Hawthorn, a team that prides itself on cleanness of disposal (especially out of the back half), would want such a player.

Clarkson looks to me like a man clutching at straws as he tries to get Hawthorn back in the top four and get himself a contract extension.

They won't win a flag before us. Mark it.

[Disco Demons 92]

cam bruce was over paid as a player in my opinion.

he was the highest paid player at melb and I believe he was in the AFL top 50 earners...quoted by various sources. thanks to ricky nixon.

in terms of player profile at the clube he wasn't the number 1 player....this would belong more to the likes of davey.

He never was good for club marketing. to be highest paid player at a club you should naturally boost the clubs profile in the media. I'm not saying he has to get on the footy show each week but a component of being in the leagues top 50 earners would be to get the team/sponsors in the media through onfield performance more often than not...this is something bruce couldn't do whilst at the club on his own accord.

I do see bruce as a good player. often beating his opponent and being creative. no agurments there.

as i said..my only problem with bruce was he was over paid for the player/profile he held whilst at the MFC.

[Robbie57 1,991]

. Compare his actions to Juniors or Neetas or poignantly to Millers and Bruce is simply shallow. and ungrateful.

I'm sure one day he will rue his decision.

On a positive I agree about Miller he played on in Finals for the scorps when offered a farewell.

Has been very dignified through his departure.

[45HG 1,539]

cam bruce was over paid as a player in my opinion.

he was the highest paid player at melb and I believe he was in the AFL top 50 earners...quoted by various sources. thanks to ricky nixon.

Quite a few people get (unreasonably) stuck on this point IMO.

This is the simple product of the salary cap system. For the last 4 years of his career at the Dees, Bruce was one of the leaders of probably the worst team going around.

Who would you have paid more to?

Someone has to be the highest, why wouldn't it go to one of our most consistent players? And if he's in the top 2-3 money earners in the worst performed club it's obvious how he'd be in the top 50 or so earners in the league, especially when you consider that the Geelongs, St. Kildas etc. have to share the same pie (and bigger slices) to more players.

[beelzebub 22,243]

This seems to be the sticking point with me throughout the whole Bruce debate. Was he really? The why did I (and most other Melbourne supporters I'd be standing next to) have the heart in their mouth every time he had the ball in his hands?

I frankly find it odd that Hawthorn, a team that prides itself on cleanness of disposal (especially out of the back half), would want such a player.

Clarkson looks to me like a man clutching at straws as he tries to get Hawthorn back in the top four and get himself a contract extension.

They won't win a flag before us. Mark it.

Agree, agree and agree. Got me totally puzzled. He is a decent tagger but Bruce and 'skills' ought never be used together!! Lol

[Disco Demons 92]

Quite a few people get (unreasonably) stuck on this point IMO.

This is the simple product of the salary cap system. For the last 4 years of his career at the Dees, Bruce was one of the leaders of probably the worst team going around.

Who would you have paid more to?

Someone has to be the highest, why wouldn't it go to one of our most consistent players? And if he's in the top 2-3 money earners in the worst performed club it's obvious how he'd be in the top 50 or so earners in the league, especially when you consider that the Geelongs, St. Kildas etc. have to share the same pie (and bigger slices) to more players.

i would have prefered to go out and buy a player or two.

[Guest hangon007]

the community bashing

Interesting observation. Would you care to elaborate what you mean?

[nutbean 8,837]

Quite a few people get (unreasonably) stuck on this point IMO.

This is the simple product of the salary cap system. For the last 4 years of his career at the Dees, Bruce was one of the leaders of probably the worst team going around.

Who would you have paid more to?

Someone has to be the highest, why wouldn't it go to one of our most consistent players? And if he's in the top 2-3 money earners in the worst performed club it's obvious how he'd be in the top 50 or so earners in the league, especially when you consider that the Geelongs, St. Kildas etc. have to share the same pie (and bigger slices) to more players.

This is true - it has always stuck in my craw ( the craw, not the craw) that we had to pay out 92% of the salary cap in our lean years - it means that poor performing clubs have to pay some of their players over the odds and good players who want to remain at their current successful clubs have to accept less as more players within that club need higher salaries based on their quality. On the one hand the cap keeps a leveler playing field - no salary cap and the financially strong clubs will put the strugglers out of business. On the other hand - what the hell way is that to run a business !!! "I'll pay you more than your worth because I have to spend 92% of the salary cap"

Edited December 10, 2010 by nutbean

[Red Sox 2]

Quite a few people get (unreasonably) stuck on this point IMO.

This is the simple product of the salary cap system. For the last 4 years of his career at the Dees, Bruce was one of the leaders of probably the worst team going around.

Who would you have paid more to?

Someone has to be the highest, why wouldn't it go to one of our most consistent players? And if he's in the top 2-3 money earners in the worst performed club it's obvious how he'd be in the top 50 or so earners in the league, especially when you consider that the Geelongs, St. Kildas etc. have to share the same pie (and bigger slices) to more players.

It doesn't remove the fact he was getting paid overs in regard his true worth as a footballer, so it is not really about being stuck on the point. The point is valid no matter the circumstance. As people will always highlight in good sides, those players are getting paid below what the market would pay.

No one else in the market place would have paid what we did for Bruce.