Cameron Bruce

[rpfc 28,405]

I remember the 'Davey saga' and never thought he was leaving.

And what did he sign for?

About $100k less a year than what Freo was offering.

Contract dealings are contract dealings but Cameron has got to see that this isn't 5 years ago - he isn't an emeging superstar (thanks Brent...).

He is ageing runner who will soon be a periphery player - he should sign for the money he is offered or leave to win a flag with a team who will probably offer less money than us.

Edited November 4, 2010 by rpfc

[e25 5]

You raise an interesting question for me, rfpc...

Do posters really believe that if Brent Guerra didn't put that hit on Bruce, that he'd be a different player today?

I think he'd be much the same, but that year je nay have performed better.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

You raise an interesting question for me, rfpc...

Do posters really believe that if Brent Guerra didn't put that hit on Bruce, that he'd be a different player today?

I think he'd be much the same, but that year je nay have performed better.

I'm a bit concerned at the comment in THE AGE yesterday that he may be boycotting training as insurance in case he gets hurt before the contract is signed. Hmmm.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

At the moment he is not contracted at the Club. He would not be deemed an employee of the Club for work cover/ injury insurance purposes. Its as much a protection of the Club and the players rights. If he is injured at training with no contract then Bruce would prima facie have to pick up the tab if the Club didnt and would then have to potentially sue the Club for costs and loss of earnings if the injury is serious enough. What would happen if Bruce without contract had a training mishap and had to have full 12 month knee reco. Would MFC sign him on the one year contract then? Would Bruce have grounds to claim on MFC? Possibly.

[jayceebee31 761]

Agree.

Agree. But I dont believe he is playing a dangerous game for 2012. Its what he does on the field this year that counts.

Have you ever tried to enforce the terms of a verbal contract in the Courts??

At the moment you dont know what has been agreed to and that either or both parties have committed to contractual arrangements.

The issue is not whether he will turn up Monday but what the state of his contract discussion is.

And HT lives in a burrow in the ground so you are losing out big time offering a tin shed. B)

RR- Fair point.And thanks for letting me know HT's accommodation- I thought as much- only rassin.Please tell me is he a bunny? a hare? or a skunk? Again- only rassin.I hope this Bruce thing is sorted out -so we can all get on with it.

Edited November 5, 2010 by jayceebee31

[beelzebub 23,364]

Something I struggle with in respect to this is who (other club) would in all reality offer Bruce better terms ?seems to me he's on the verge of shooting himself in the foot !

[e25 5]

Doggies or Saints would imho.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

At the moment he is not contracted at the Club. He would not be deemed an employee of the Club for work cover/ injury insurance purposes. Its as much a protection of the Club and the players rights. If he is injured at training with no contract then Bruce would prima facie have to pick up the tab if the Club didnt and would then have to potentially sue the Club for costs and loss of earnings if the injury is serious enough. What would happen if Bruce without contract had a training mishap and had to have full 12 month knee reco. Would MFC sign him on the one year contract then? Would Bruce have grounds to claim on MFC? Possibly.

Thanks for the clarification. He could pop in though and bond with the rest of his team mates. Just got be careful he doesn't slip on a banana peel.

Edited November 5, 2010 by america de cali

[Chook 15,013]

James Hird would have a few things to teach a guy like Bruce. And we all know how highly he rates him.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

3.15 still no word

wtf is going on?

[Big Kev 365]

At the moment he is not contracted at the Club. He would not be deemed an employee of the Club for work cover/ injury insurance purposes. Its as much a protection of the Club and the players rights. If he is injured at training with no contract then Bruce would prima facie have to pick up the tab if the Club didnt and would then have to potentially sue the Club for costs and loss of earnings if the injury is serious enough. What would happen if Bruce without contract had a training mishap and had to have full 12 month knee reco. Would MFC sign him on the one year contract then? Would Bruce have grounds to claim on MFC? Possibly.

Firstly I agree that if Cam hasn't re-signed then he should not risk injury training with the club, but that leads to an interesting question -

How are players that are invited to train with the club covered?

Someone said TMac was training on Monday, how would he be covered?

[Redleg 40,904]

Firstly I agree that if Cam hasn't re-signed then he should not risk injury training with the club, but that leads to an interesting question -

How are players that are invited to train with the club covered?

Someone said TMac was training on Monday, how would he be covered?

I would imagine that Insurance could be arranged for training rather than match play for a group of players under the AFL umbrella.

Getting back to Bruce, I know many will howl me down and that Cam has been a great player for us, but I keep recalling his ball use last year which a lot of the time was terrible. In the drawn Pies game he gave the ball to the Pies a number of times especially in the 1st quarter and literally handed them 2-3 goals. He gives the appearance of being scared of contact and is willing to sacrifice the ball to save himself. I don't think he is vital to our team and I would not be devastated if he chose to leave and we get another draft pick.

As for the poster who said pay him whatever he wants, oh dear!

Edited November 5, 2010 by Redleg

[e25 5]

Yeah, I haven't seen any convincing arguments that we lose a lot if Bruce goes.

It may even help us find time for kids that we need to get games into...

[beelzebub 23,364]

Redleg , you're definitely not alone !!

[1858 285]

I don't think he is vital to our team and I would not be devastated if he chose to leave and we get another draft pick.

Only in the rookie draft though.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

I would imagine that Insurance could be arranged for training rather than match play for a group of players under the AFL umbrella.

Getting back to Bruce, I know many will howl me down and that Cam has been a great player for us, but I keep recalling his ball use last year which a lot of the time was terrible. In the drawn Pies game he gave the ball to the Pies a number of times especially in the 1st quarter and literally handed them 2-3 goals. He gives the appearance of being scared of contact and is willing to sacrifice the ball to save himself. I don't think he is vital to our team and I would not be devastated if he chose to leave and we get another draft pick.

As for the poster who said pay him whatever he wants, oh dear!

you don't know anything about the inner life of the football club, none of you do. I tell you what he is a better kick than Tom Scully and Jack Grimes but nobody would ever suggest that is justification for either of them being dropped/delisted. There are several players who get regular games who are as soft as s--t but you don't hear about that either. The only things I've ever heard about Bruce is that he is the ultimate professional, and is highly respected at the club, and now he and Green are the only ones left who are over 27. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but it amazes me that some body could finish in the top10 of the B+F ten years running, 5 times in the top5, WIN IT 2 YEARS AGO and make it again THIS YEAR and people still reckon he serves no purpose. How can anyone justify that?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR- Fair point.And thanks for letting me know HT's accommodation- I thought as much- only rassin.Please tell me is he a bunny? a hare? or a skunk? Again- only rassin.I hope this Bruce thing is sorted out -so we can all get on with it.

He's definitely a noxious skunk!

Agree on Bruce.

Thanks for the clarification. He could pop in though and bond with the rest of his team mates. Just got be careful he doesn't slip on a banana peel.

Its a worry if it were John Meesen though.

I would imagine that Insurance could be arranged for training rather than match play for a group of players under the AFL umbrella.

That was my understanding too.

[rpfc 28,405]

you don't know anything about the inner life of the football club, none of you do. I tell you what he is a better kick than Tom Scully and Jack Grimes but nobody would ever suggest that is justification for either of them being dropped/delisted. There are several players who get regular games who are as soft as s--t but you don't hear about that either. The only things I've ever heard about Bruce is that he is the ultimate professional, and is highly respected at the club, and now he and Green are the only ones left who are over 27. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but it amazes me that some body could finish in the top10 of the B+F ten years running, 5 times in the top5, WIN IT 2 YEARS AGO and make it again THIS YEAR and people still reckon he serves no purpose. How can anyone justify that?

He serves a purpose. But not as great a one as his management has led him to believe.

And his kicking is far worse than Scully and Grimes. Especially considering all he has concentrated on in the last 10 years is AFL footy it a shame you have tried to compare him to a 19 yr old and a 21 yr old.

He has two years on the VL left if he wants it.

He has to take it a year at a time and on money that reflects his importance to our flag tilt.

If you have a problem with that mindset. Please justify it.

[sylvinator 96]

2 points

1. Bruce seems to be being a little over indulgent here wanting more money, considering he's been one of the best paid players at the club for many years, perhaps paid above his market value for up to 5 years. The club has been very good to him money-wise, surely that counts for something.

2. The club seems to be being a little stubborn, and appears to be trying to stand their ground bc of principle, rather than for any pragmatic reason. The reality is that half of Bruce's salary will be outside the cap. That means that even if Bruce gets another huge salary (around 500k for example), only $250K would go towards the cap, which is what mediocre players will be on.

I hope the two parties can come to a common ground.

Bruce still has 2 (maybe 3) really good years of footy left in him. He's super consistent, always in the top 10 in our B&F, and has been Vice-Captain for a few years, meaning his leadership will be important for a young group coming through.

[Deestroy All 14,266]

you don't know anything about the inner life of the football club, none of you do. I tell you what he is a better kick than Tom Scully and Jack Grimes but nobody would ever suggest that is justification for either of them being dropped/delisted. There are several players who get regular games who are as soft as s--t but you don't hear about that either. The only things I've ever heard about Bruce is that he is the ultimate professional, and is highly respected at the club, and now he and Green are the only ones left who are over 27. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but it amazes me that some body could finish in the top10 of the B+F ten years running, 5 times in the top5, WIN IT 2 YEARS AGO and make it again THIS YEAR and people still reckon he serves no purpose. How can anyone justify that?

Hardly anyone besides you are arguing his value. The footy department could see him walk, they think he's worth less money than he/Nixon thinks he is.

Justifies itself.

[e25 5]

2 points

1. Bruce seems to be being a little over indulgent here wanting more money, considering he's been one of the best paid players at the club for many years, perhaps paid above his market value for up to 5 years. The club has been very good to him money-wise, surely that counts for something.

2. The club seems to be being a little stubborn, and appears to be trying to stand their ground bc of principle, rather than for any pragmatic reason. The reality is that half of Bruce's salary will be outside the cap. That means that even if Bruce gets another huge salary (around 500k for example), only $250K would go towards the cap, which is what mediocre players will be on.

I hope the two parties can come to a common ground.

Bruce still has 2 (maybe 3) really good years of footy left in him. He's super consistent, always in the top 10 in our B&F, and has been Vice-Captain for a few years, meaning his leadership will be important for a young group coming through.

On your 2nd point, it depends on how much more Brucey is asking for.

If we cave to demands, with the front-loading of contracts, it may affect our future ability to fit all players within the salary cap.

[Chook 15,013]

you don't know anything about the inner life of the football club, none of you do. I tell you what he is a better kick than Tom Scully and Jack Grimes but nobody would ever suggest that is justification for either of them being dropped/delisted. There are several players who get regular games who are as soft as s--t but you don't hear about that either. The only things I've ever heard about Bruce is that he is the ultimate professional, and is highly respected at the club, and now he and Green are the only ones left who are over 27. I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but it amazes me that some body could finish in the top10 of the B+F ten years running, 5 times in the top5, WIN IT 2 YEARS AGO and make it again THIS YEAR and people still reckon he serves no purpose. How can anyone justify that?

There is no way on Earth Cameron Bruce's kicking is better than Jack Grimes'. Other than that, you're spot on.

[e25 5]

It's not better than Tom Scully's either.

[Radar Detector 1,347]

On your 2nd point, it depends on how much more Brucey is asking for.

If we cave to demands, with the front-loading of contracts, it may affect our future ability to fit all players within the salary cap.

Not only that, but the payments have to be funded from somewhere. Just because it won't be 100% caught in the cap doesn't mean we should pay any more than Bruce is actually worth. We don't have the funds of Collingwood to splash around.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Deemolition

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

150 of us in a shoe box in the middle of the road!

Luxury!!